Sitting of 21 January 1992

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

    Sunderland General Hospital
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available at the intensive care unit at Sunderland general hospital in (a) December 1990 and (b) December 1991.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Five beds were available at the intensive care unit throughout both of the months named.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for most of last year, only four of the seven beds in the Sunderland intensive care unit were operating, that five are now operating, although there is a staff shortage, and that the future of the fifth bed is not clear? Is he aware also that during that time scale many seriously ill patients had to be turned away and had to go to other hospitals and that patients using the unit had to be taken out of it prematurely so that others more seriously ill could take their place? How does that square with the repeated claim that the national health service is safe in Tory hands?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is true that, on occasions last year, there were staff shortages in the intensive care unit at the hospital. The health authority has made it clear that it is initiating an inquiry to establish the levels of staffing and back-up staffing that are necessary to ensure that there are no shortages. I am advised that there were no serious repercussions for any patient at Sunderland general hospital last year.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sunderland general hospital will receive an investment of £19 million this year, of which £11 million is to be spent on a new acute ward block? That is part of Northern regional health authority's largest-ever capital investment, and it has been brought about by the Government.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the local example in Sunderland of the greatest-ever capital investment programme taking place in the national health service. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) might have mentioned that the local health authority has committed itself to eliminating all waiting lists of more than 12 months by the end of this calendar year.

    HIV Infection
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make provisions comparable to those made to haemophiliacs to non-haemophiliacs infected with HIV as a result of national health service blood or tissue transfers.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We have every sympathy with the plight of those infected with HIV as a result of NHS blood or tissue transfer. However, we have not been persuaded that it would be right to extend the special provision which has been made for the infected haemophiliacs.
    Mr. Strang: How can the Minister justify the Government's callous attitude towards those who become HIV positive as a result of national health service treatment? Surely she accepts that the Government were right to provide compensation for haemophiliacs who became infected through contaminated blood factor 8. Surely she must appreciate that there is no logical or moral case for making a distinction between haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs in this respect. That is the view of the Haemophilia Society and of the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the Government think again on this matter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Frankly, I find it extremely difficult to make judgments about any of the 5,451 AIDS sufferers, let alone the 16,828 HIV sufferers. As the hon. Gentleman of all people will know, we must ensure that we have effective, first-rate services for all those suffering from HIV or AIDS. We took the view that the haemophiliacs were a special case: they were doubly disadvantaged because of their hereditary condition and the onset of HIV, which compounded their problems.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I press my hon. Friend on this matter? Does she agree that haemophiliacs and others who are given contaminated blood transfusions receive them from the national health service? Does she agree also that we are talking of not one or two people but tens of people? There are more than 1,000 haemophiliacs and nearly 100 others who received contaminated blood transfusions. These major disasters are compounded by the fact that those people believed that the NHS would make them better.
    How can my hon. Friend argue that compensation should be given to haemophiliacs because, sadly, they suffered a congenital disease and that a sick person who required a blood transfusion was in a different category? The result is the same—great suffering for the individual and great suffering for his or her family, probably the onset of AIDS and, ultimately, death. In those terms alone, have not the Government and the NHS a moral obligation to do something about the matter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that it is ever possible to cut a hard-and-fast line. Any case in which a patient suffers a medical accident is a great tragedy. However, the House debated no-fault compensation and, like the royal commission involved, took the view that it could not be justified. We made a difficult decision, and provided a generous settlement for haemophiliacs. Although my hon. Friend makes persuasive and powerful arguments, I cannot accept that they are convincing reasons for moving the line.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware from her files that two of the 62 cases are my constituents. Does she accept that it is impossible to explain to them why patients who are haemophiliacs are eligible for compensation but they are not—even though my constituents have the same condition, life expectancy and financial pressures? It is impossible to do that because there is no logic to that argument. If it is difficult to defend where the line is drawn, it may be that the line is drawn in the wrong place and that it should be drawn instead so that it includes all those who were infected because of NHS treatment—not just some.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As the House knows, Labour has no difficulty making pledges that would result in untold expenditure. The hon. Gentleman argues for no-fault compensation. Where it can be established that there has been negligence, of course compensation is payable. It is the job of the national health service to provide health care and treatment and to continue developing that treatment. I cannot convince myself or the House that the hon. Gentleman's argument is right or persuasive. I remind the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that, this year, £200 million will be earmarked especially for those suffering from HIV or AIDS.

    EC Health Treatment
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce proposals whereby national health service patients could be referred to receive treatment in the EC.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Under current European Community regulations, individual patients may be referred elsewhere in the Community for treatment in certain specified circumstances, with the prior authorisation of the Department.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of our European partners, with a very high standard of health care, are offering to perform operations for which there is a demand in this country—such as hip replacement—at competitive prices? One health authority is already negotiating with a French hospital, but it is under the impression that it may not yet make use of that facility. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an arrangement would not only broaden the health services already made available to patients but achieve financial savings that could be ploughed back into the provision of other services?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I urge my hon. Friend to examine more carefully the health arrangements in many European Community countries, because Britain is one of the few in which a patient may visit a general practitioner and receive hospital treatment free of charge. That is rare in the rest of the Community. Patients in France are expected to pay 20 per cent. and patients in Belgium up to 25 per cent. of the costs. My hon. Friend should again examine the relative costings. The figures that she gave referred to comparisons with the private sector, not the national health service. I want to ensure that we build on the success of the first six months of NHS reforms so that no one will want to go anywhere but to his or her most immediately available hospital to receive NHS treatment.
    Dr. Kumar: Will the Minister make the point that, rather than look for treatment to be provided elsewhere in
    166
    Europe, the Government should provide hospitals in this country? For the past 10 years, my constituency has been promised a hospital, but no progress has been made.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I much regret that such a new Member of Parliament should have picked up the churlish habits of other Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman's constituency includes the South Cleveland NHS trust hospital, which is a first-rate, second-wave trust. As the report produced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, patients are getting a first-rate service from NHS hospitals and ever-improving treatment from the hospitals.
    Dame Jill Knight: The problem is not just that frequently patients in other European countries have to pay for their treatment. They often receive a far lower standard of care than patients in this country. Is not it a fact that doctors and nurses in France were on strike recently, and that in Italy patients have to ask relatives to bring in food because none is provided by the hospitals? Relatives often have to provide non-medical care as well, and patients have to bring in their own blankets and bed linen. Will my hon. Friend note that I, for one, want to receive the superior care that our patients receive?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I seem to remember being told that the latest policy is to turn water cannon on the nurses; that does not strike me as the most helpful approach.
    We do indeed have one of the best health services in the European Community, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise its strengths. The report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced last week revealed that this year we are due to treat an extra 250,000 patients; we are cutting the number of long "waiters", and creating a service that is responsive to patient needs. Those are all reasons for us to have pride in our health service, rather than denigrating the achievements of all our public-spirited NHS staff.

    Mentally Ill People
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of community care provision for people with serious mental illness.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am today publishing an assessment of the case for hospital hostels for people with serious mental illness. In recent years, we have established the capital loans fund and introduced the mental illness specific grant. My right hon. Friend recently announced that the mental illness specific grant is to be increased by 50 per cent. in the coming year, and he is today announcing that we are doubling the size of the homeless mentally ill programme in London. This programme together provides over £100 million of new money for mental illness services in this country.
    Mr. McFall: There could be no more tragically eloquent testimony to the fact that the Government's community care policies have failed than the sight of mentally ill people spilling on to the streets every moment. Although it comes late, I welcome the comment by the Secretary of State for the Environment that that sight is an affront to society.

    167
    May I point out, however, that it is not only for the convenience of passing citizens that mentally ill people should be cleared from the streets? What is required is adequate special accommodation, along with the necessary health facilities. Will the Minister give a commitment that there will be no further discharges of patients from long-term hospitals until places have been found for mentally ill patients? Will he also give an assurance—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
    Mr. McFall: Will the Minister give an assurance that mentally ill patients who were ejected before the Government's U-turn will be given a rightful place in society?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every particular. First, he is wrong to assume that the policy to which he refers is espoused only by the Government: until now, there has been a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that mentally ill people receive care and facilities that are properly attuned to their needs.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked for a change of policy that would ensure that, before people were discharged from long-stay hospitals, proper provision was made for them in the community. That does not require a change of policy; it is the Government's policy. It is our policy that no one should be discharged from long-stay hospitals without the existence of a care programme that defines that person's needs—and, furthermore, naming an individual key worker who will be responsible for ensuring that the person receives the care that he requires.
    The fact is that the hon. Gentleman cannot support his assertions on the basis of the available evidence.
    Several Hon. Members rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that multiple questions lead to multiple answers and take up time.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's announcement. Does he accept, however, that—sadly—many of those who are sleeping rough in our cities and elsewhere have indeed been discharged from psychiatric hospitals and have slipped through the care package net? Hundreds more are in our prisons, which are the wrong place for such people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is a proper care package, properly drawn up, for every mentally ill patient who is discharged from a psychiatric hospital before such patients are discharged? If that cannot be achieved, will he ensure that psychiatric hospitals do not close until the necessary arrangements can be made?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the document that we are publishing today on hospital hostels. I agree with him that they have an important role to play in a fully integrated service for mentally ill people, but the House would mislead itself if it believed that those mentally ill people who find themselves on the streets are drawn from those patients who have been discharged from long-term care in hospitals. The great majority of homeless people who are mentally ill have never been in our hospitals. We need to ensure that the management of community care is improved to meet the needs of those who are discharged from hospitals and, more particularly, of those who have never been long-stay patients in our hospitals for the mentally ill.
    Mr. Rooker: I welcome without qualification the Minister's statement and confirm that there is a bipartisan approach to this policy. However, we want that policy to be activated and managed. That is the difference between us. We do not want to stand idly by and do nothing. The Minister's announcement—which again I welcome without qualification—comes six years after the Audit Commission's report on care in the community, which in paragraph 28 highlighted the fact that then, six years ago, there were 37,000 fewer mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients than there were 10 years ago but that nobody knew where those who had been discharged were because nobody had done anything to find out what had happened to them. For six years, the Government have not taken a blind bit of notice of the Audit Commission's report. They have allowed their care in the community policy for ex-mental patients to amount to no more than people drifting within a community of hostels, in which one finds people who have fallen through the safety net and ended up homeless on the streets.
    Mr. Dorrell: I find myself left wondering, if £100 million of new money is standing idly by, how much an action programme is going to cost the Labour party and when we shall see it properly costed.

    Orthopaedic Treatments
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what factor (a) hip replacements and (b) all orthopaedic procedures have increased since 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): The latest figures for 1990–91 show the number of hip replacements up by 54 per cent. from 28,788 to 44,477. Latest information on all orthopaedic procedures from the hospital episode statistics is for 1989–90 and shows an increase of 18 per cent. from 554,000 to 656,000.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon Friend agree that the figures confirm the tremendous advances that have been made in health care since the Conservatives came to power? Does he agree that that is evidenced by the recent successful survey of the national health service? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that the last Labour Government introduced such swingeing real cuts in the health service that, if they were returned to power, it would represent a real threat to those who require advanced orthopaedic treatment?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. That is reflected in the fact that there are now about 100,000 more orthopaedic operations than there were in 1979. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) recently said to the House, rather chillingly, that if Labour were re-elected it would treat the national health service as it did last time. As Mr. Charles Webster, the national health service historian, recently told "Newsnight", that meant a splurge of spending at the beginning that was followed by the most desperate and dangerous cuts ever in the history of the national health service.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an enormous number of people in Herefordshire are very grateful for the spectacular increase in knee and hip replacements that has taken place in that health authority's area during the past 10 years? It is an

    169
    astonishingly successful programme. However, with a higher age structure, compared with the national average, demand continues to outstrip supply. In view of my right hon. Friend's waiting lists initiative, will he take special cognisance of that point and balance the distribution of that resource to reflect the age structure?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend knows that one of the changes that we are introducing is much fairer funding of health authorities throughout the land to reflect, among other things, the age structure. It is the duty of health authorities to meet the needs of local people by putting the money where it best serves those local needs.

    Eye Treatments
    Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for reducing waiting times in respect of eye treatments; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: We are taking vigorous action to reduce waiting times for hospital treatment in all specialties.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for many years within the referral area of the Plymouth eye infirmary, people have had to wait excessively long periods not only for an initial eye examination but for subsequent treatment? Will my hon. Friend tell us what action is being taken to improve the position in respect of new staff and new facilities and any benefits that might be derived from the new contractual arrangements?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the ophthalmology specialty in Plymouth hospital has had excessive waiting lists. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the new structures and management priorities of the health service led the health authority to appoint a new ophthalmology consultant last week to provide extra sessions to work through the waiting list. The contracting system to which my hon. Friend referred has made it possible for the health authority to provide extra capacity for the specialty at Exeter hospital which will ensure that the waiting list can be worked off much more quickly than would otherwise be possible. My hon. Friend's constituency experience demonstrates clearly the higher priority now attached to reducing waiting times and the management system that is necessary to deliver that objective.
    Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that the new cataract centre at Manchester royal eye hospital is dependent upon private patients to pay the £2 million loan for its refurbishment? Does he agree that that will lead to preferential treatment for private patients and creeping privatisation? Why on earth is his Department so scared of answering questions on this subject?
    Mr. Dorrell: That question is not for the Government; it is for the hon. Gentleman and his party to explain to his constituents why it is in the interests of the patients of Manchester to remove private patients from NHS hospitals, to deny the NHS revenue that private patients bring and to deny benefits to NHS patients in general.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether the Opposition like it or not, waiting lists are going down? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and administrators who have made the reforms, the fundholders and the NHS trusts a success? Will my hon.
    170
    Friend ask the Opposition whether they will continue to embark upon their policy of abolishing those trusts? If they do not give an answer, will my hon. Friend take the Leader of the Opposition out for an Italian meal?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the deafening silence of the Labour party when last week we announced success in reducing long waits for NHS treatment. The House may be interested to know that, because we were seeking to look at the effect of NHS management reforms over the first six months, we did not draw attention to the fact that the number of people who have been waiting for more than one year on in-patient lists is 37 per cent. down on what it was when we took office in 1979.

    Infant Mortality
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the infant mortality rate for each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The rate of infant mortality per 1,000 live births in England and Wales has fallen from 11.1 in 1981 to 7.9 in 1990. The complete figures for the past 10 years will be published in the Official Report.
    Miss Lestor: Although those figures are welcome, is the Minister aware that we do not compare well with our European colleagues and that our declining infant mortality rate is not as good as many of their rates? Also, there are big differences between social classes and regions in this country in terms of the opportunities for children to survive. Does the Minister consider it fair that, if a child is born in East Anglia, it has a far better chance of survival than if it is born in Yorkshire or in my region, where we recently lost five intensive care cots? Is not it right that all children should have access to the latest technology, irrespective of where they live or the poverty of their parents?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that it is right for the hon. Lady to knock the national health service in that way. In fact, Britain's figures are rather good. Some in Europe are better than ours, but we are better than some others and very much better than the United States. She will also want to welcome the fact given in answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that the percentage improvement among the poorest groups—what the sociologists call groups 4 and 5—has been greater than that among the higher groups, so the gap is therefore narrowing. That is very welcome.
    I recently referred the subject of access to neo-natal facilities to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, and we recently set up a confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. We are making steady progress, of which the country should be proud. We should also be proud of the NHS's achievement in that respect.
    Mr. Conway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the improvements made in Shropshire, especially by the maternity unit of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, where two thirds of the Conway brood were born? Is he aware that that progress has been made not merely because of the skill of the consultants and of the nursing staff but because of the way they work together as a team? Therefore, will

    171
    he ensure that the district health authority does not break up that team in order to move it to Telford to try to keep an under-used district general hospital busy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that steady progress is being made, as my hon. Friend says. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for having tabled the question, which otherwise the Opposition might have accused me of having planted.
    Following is the information:

    Infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births: 1981–1990 England and Wales

    Year

    Rate

    1981

    11·1

    1982

    10·8

    1983

    10·1

    1984

    9·5

    1985

    9·4

    1986

    9·6

    1987

    9·2

    1988

    9·0

    1989

    8·4

    1990

    7·9

    GP Budget Holders
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of budget-holding general practitioner practices.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's introduction of general practitioner fundholding has been a clear success, a fact confirmed in the independent academic research undertaken by Professor Glennerster of the London school of economics reported today by the King's Fund.
    To allow the advantages of fund holding to be enjoyed by more patients and doctors, I am pleased to announce that we are lowering the list size eligibility criterion from 9,000 patients to 7,000 patients for practices entering the scheme from April 1993.
    Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend's announcement is to be welcomed by GPs who welcome the principle of managing their own funds. It helps the NHS and its patients. Is not it now time that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) apologised to the House for saying that GPs were not interested in fund holding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is true that the hon. Lady said in column 687 a couple of years back on 15 March 1990—[Interruption.]—that there was "no support among GPs"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: This takes a lot of time.
    Mr. Waldegrave: She said that that was the position of all general practitioners of fund-holding practices. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite must get used to the idea that I shall read out what their Front-Bench spokesmen have said about fund holding. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) associated himself with the sentence:
    "I'll be surprised if budget holding does not collapse in the first year."—[Official Report, 13 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 946.]
    He should have the grace to admit that he was wrong and the grace to clear up the muddle that has existed in his ranks since his colleague the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) recently announced that he
    172
    was going to abolish fund holding. I could not get a straight answer from the hon. Member for Livingston about this. I think that the House needs to know whether he will abolish fund holding in the teeth of opposition from virtually every GP and from the British Medical Association.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will not the fact that the percentage of GPs who hold their own budgets still remains a very small fraction of the total number of GPs—even after today's announcement—linked to the nature of the block contract system of an internal market, inevitably mean that, if we are to avoid a two-tier health service in terms of patient referrals, either all GPs must hold their own budgets or none should be budget holders? The present two-tier structure is leading to a two-tier treatment of health.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Like those on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is out of date. Professor Glennerster and others looked at the allegations and found no evidence of a two-tier structure emerging. Professor Glennerster said that it was clear that the benefits won by GP fund holders were swiftly being transferred to the patients of other GPs, which is what we said would happen. I think that the hon. Member, who belongs to a party that is supposed to believe in devolution, might occasionally support a practical piece of devolution.
    Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that GPs were encouraged to introduce computerisation partly by an offer of Government funds to refund the cost of that process and, in districts such as the Wessex health authority, those funds have not been fully forthcoming? Will he agree to allow a carry-over into next year to ensure that those GPs who have introduced computerisation will be compensated by the Government, in accordance with the Government undertaking?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have been to a large number of conferences and met many general practitioners, including many from my hon. Friend's district. I have found no such systematic problems, but if there are specific difficulties in some practices, those involved should discuss them with their regional health authority.
    Mrs. Mahon: Why does the Minister continue to misrepresent the views of doctors? Is he aware that the chair of the local British Medical Association branch in Calderdale recently publicly rebuked local Tories who were saying that GPs wanted to become fund holders? Dr. Whittaker had to say that no doctors in Calderdale had applied to become fund holders in either the second or third wave. Is it not about time that the Minister started to represent doctors' views properly?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am tempted to quote Oliver Cromwell and to ask whether the hon. Lady could conceive of the possibility that she might be wrong. I am making the extension because of the pressure from general practitioners who have asked me to extend the list size. People are queuing up to join the voluntary scheme.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fund-holding system has been a spectacular success—so much so that many of the more trendy, intellectual GPs who were initially sceptical of it now welcome it more and more with open arms? Will my right hon. Friend look

    173
    again at some of the procedures for recording, note taking and keeping records, as some GPs say that the system is a little too cumbersome and bureaucratic?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am very sympathetic to comments like that. The scheme will obviously be a permanent and beneficial part of health care in this country but is, I am sure, susceptible to improvement and further development, which I shall promote. My hon. Friend correctly records the honesty of many general practitioners, some of whom were sceptical. At his press conference this morning, Professor Glennerster said that, when he started his investigation, he was sceptical, but that he was converted by the evidence of his own eyes, and what he had seen and heard. I only wish that the Labour party had the same openness of mind.
    Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State does not believe that GP fund holding produces two-tier waiting lists, how can he explain the position in Manchester, where patients of fund holders are given eye treatment in a private wing, while patients of other GPs wait 13 months for an appointment? If that is not queue-jumping, what does the Secretary of State call it? How can he explain the position in Surrey and in St. Albans, where consultants are being placed under pressure by managers to give priority to GP fund holders because they bring extra money? If the Secretary of State does not recognise that as an example of two-tier lists, what will he recognise as such?
    I shall answer the Secretary of State's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is getting in practice and asking the questions to which I give the answers at Question Time, as it is a situation to which he shall have to become accustomed. The next Labour Government will end GP fund holding, because we shall not tolerate a two-tier list system in which the length of time a patient waits depends on the size of the GP's budget. There is a phrase for that policy—double standards. The Labour party will clear it out of the NHS.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I offer the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) my heartfelt thanks for giving what is almost the first straight answer that I have ever extracted from him. I believe that he has, in a single word, delivered to us the votes of the majority of general practitioners in the country, for which I am most grateful. I urge him to study the remarks of Professor Glennerster, who knows rather more about this matter than he does and has laid the two-tier rumours to rest once and for all.

    Nurse Prescribing
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards permitting nurse prescribing.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims) has introduced a private Member's Bill to allow nurse prescribing. It has the Government's full support.
    Mr. Fishburn: I thank my hon. Friend. As, only a few months ago, she very charmingly killed a similar measure that I had introduced I doubly welcome her support now. Does she now accept that allowing nurses to write prescriptions against a limited range of medical products is a liberalising measure that peels back one layer of the onion skin in the bureaucracy of health care? Would she
    174
    care to tell the House the costs and benefits of this measure, which will be welcomed so much by doctors, nurses and, of course, patients?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The House and, indeed, the nursing profession are indebted to my hon. Friend, who pioneered this measure in the House. I am very pleased that our hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is now able to take it forward. We did indeed commission a cost-benefit analysis by Touche Ross. That has been published today, and there is a copy in the Library. It shows that the cost is likely to be about 15 million a year, but the benefits will be improved patient care and a greater ability on the part of community nurses to use their professional skills to the full.

    East Cumbria Health Authority
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the Northern regional health authority to discuss the financial budget of East Cumbria district health authority.
    Mr. Dorrell: I have not discussed East Cumbria's budget with the chairman of the Northern regional health authority. Establishing the budgets of district health authorities is a task delegated to the regional health authority.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister discuss with the regional chairman the formula base that is used for the distribution of money to the districts? Is he happy with the fact that one of the deprivation factors that he has used relates to car ownership? Does he realise that, in rural areas such as East Cumbria, many low-paid people need cars because public transport does not exist? Last year this formula robbed East Cumbria and my constituents of many thousands of pounds. Does not the Minister agree that it will be a travesty if the same formula is used this year and my constituents are therefore robbed of much more money that is needed for health in the area?
    Mr. Dorrell: Some of my hon. Friends will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy of the rural cause. He raises a subject that he has discussed with me. I have told him that I agree that the way in which the region originally proposed to use car ownership raises some questions that have not yet been answered. That is why the Department has written to the Northern region saying in effect, "We hope you will take account of our reservations in the next year's allocations, either in the formula or in tempering the pace of change where you have yet to satisfy yourselves and us that the adjustment you propose is entirely reliable."
    Mr. Jopling: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the East Cumbria authority, will he congratulate him warmly on the fact that having, since 1982–83, secured a budget increase, after inflation, of almost 15 per cent. and an increase in front-line staff of about 28 per cent., he has succeeded in securing a yearly increase of 42 per cent. in the number of in-patients and an increase of 152 per cent. in the number of out-patients? That is a very remarkable achievement.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the very distinguished record of that health authority. He might have drawn attention also to the fact that the health

    175
    service is planning to spend £36 million on a very substantial capital scheme at the Cumberland infirmary. The health service in East Cumbria is developing fast, to the benefit of all patients—my right hon. Friend's constituents and those of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

    Healthy Eating
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent by his Department on advice to the public in respect of healthy eating.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: During the current financial year, some £2.7 million will be spent by the Department and the Health Education Authority on healthy eating advice.
    Mr. Banks: Is it not time that the Government diverted rather more of their enormous advertising budget into advocating the eating of vegetables to promote health? After all, the Minister is surrounded by a large number of them on the Conservative Benches. If she were interested in such a campaign, she could perhaps use as the model for it our own dear Speaker, whose radiant health and youthfulness make him the perfect epitome of a diet based on vegetarianism.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman's advice should be warmly taken by members of his own party. May I suggest that he directs that advice to those who think that the right way forward is a £500 roadside snack at the Savoy to raise party funds? It may also be helpful to those who dine at Italian restaurants and seem to suffer from Luigi's syndrome.
    Sir John Stokes: Is it part of the Government's duty to advise us all on what we should eat? Is my hon. Friend aware that I have lived for a number of years without any such advice, and I cannot believe that it is really necessary?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend's view is worth having. On the whole, the advice is in favour of a balanced and sensible diet, and I think that the public wants facts and not fads.
    Mrs. Heal: Why will not the Minister introduce nutritional guidelines for school meals to ensure that the school meals service plays a vital role in child nutrition, as recommended in the Black report a decade ago?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We have had the excellent report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, which has been extremely helpful. A great deal of work is being carried out by the Health Education Authority, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that people have simple and effective information about healthy eating, and a great deal is being done on school meals, with the particular help of the wife of our own Secretary of State.

  PRIME MINISTER

    South Africa
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his policies towards South Africa.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I welcome the meeting of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa in December. The Government will continue to encourage all parties to play a constructive role in the reform process. In order to encourage the growth that the South African economy desperately needs, we shall continue to work for the removal of the remaining economic and financial sanctions.
    Mr. Hunter: As many United Kingdom citizens live and own property in South Africa, or in other ways invest there, will my right hon. Friend discuss with President de Klerk the increasing violence there, and seek clarification on how the new South Africa can be built without the effective and practical renunciation of violence by all parties?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said, and I shall have the opportunity to discuss that with President de Klerk when he visits London early next month. I believe that all parties have a role to play in implementing the peace accord, but of course the South African Government have the primary responsibility for the impartial maintenance of law and order.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Prime Minister throw his full weight behind the proposition that an interim Government should rule South Africa during the transition period to democratic elections? As the situation is so delicate and as negotiations with the CODESA committees are currently under way, will he not—please not—do anything to damage that process by precipitate action on sanctions?
    The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I do not think that precipitate action on sanctions is the point at issue. One of the great difficulties faced by the South African Government and people at the moment is the need to see growth in their economy, which runs at present with no growth, as against a population growth of around 3 per cent. a year. That is leading to very real hardship for all the people of South Africa—most notably those in South Africa who have least—so I think that the progressive removal of sanctions is desirable for economic and social reasons, and I hope that that progressive removal of sanctions will take place.
    On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I wish to see progress made in South Africa. I think that that can best be done through the constitutional conference rather than by remarks from across many hundreds of miles.
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that, even in the teeth of an international recession, the Government have achieved reductions in interest rates, which means that the family man with an average, typical mortgage of £30,000 pays £100 a month less? Does not that augur well for the home owner and the property market in 1992?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do welcome the reductions in interest rates and, of course, in mortgage rates that we have seen. In particular, I welcome the cuts in interest rates which three more building societies have announced this morning. The background of lower interest rates and a continuing reduction in underlying inflation provide what we most need—the opportunity for steady, sustainable, non-inflationary growth.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why is the United Kingdom the only economy in the European Community that is in recession?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a number of European economies either have been in recession or are moving towards recession at precisely the moment when the United Kingdom economy is poised to come out of recession. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that there is a recession in many other parts of the world as a result of the general world trading conditions.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not answer the question that I asked. Perhaps he should refresh himself with the facts. Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy all have growth rates of over 1 per cent., Spain, Portugal and Holland over 2 per cent., and Germany and Luxembourg over 3 per cent. They are all growing; our economy is shrinking by 2 per cent. Is not that because this country and its people are paying the price for having a Government of unique incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Almost every country of the industrial world is experiencing economic problems. French unemployment has now reached its highest level. Unemployment in the United States is at its highest level for five years. In recent months, unemployment has risen in every European Community country except the Netherlands. It is higher than a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country except Japan. The right hon. Gentleman cannot live in a cocoon and overlook those facts.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of cocoons, the Prime Minister should acknowledge that the USA, Japan, Australia and Canada are not actually in the European Community. In this country, under his Government, unemployment is going up faster, investment is lower and production has fallen more than in any other European country. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Why is that happening only in Britain under his Government?
    The Prime Minister: The fact of the matter is that it is not, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, happening only in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment and recession, why does he not acknowledge the impact that his minimum wage would have upon unemployment? Why does he not acknowledge what the £6 billion-worth of cuts in defence would do to employment? Why does he not acknowledge what the impact of his tax on savings would do to investment? Why does he not acknowledge what his strikers charter would do to industrial relations? Why does he not acknowledge what his party's attitude to inward investment would do to jobs in the north-east, in Wales, in Scotland and in many other parts of the country? The policies that the right hon. Gentleman follows will ensure a long-standing and deep recession in this country.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of policy proposals which would introduce a new payroll tax on every job in this country, policy proposals which would reintroduce secondary picketing, and policy proposals which would introduce a minimum wage which would put literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those policy proposals go under the somewhat misleading title of "Labour's help to the unemployed"?
    Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister should answer the first part of that question, but not the second.
    The Prime Minister: We have no plans to introduce any such policies. Industry knows that such policies would be absolutely disastrous to it and knows from what source those policies would come, which is why its hostility to the Opposition's policies is so severe.
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Prime Minister recall that, on 26 February 1991, I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is seriously ill with leukaemia, an illness contracted while he was serving on Christmas island? At the meeting, the Prime Minister told me of his personal knowledge of the suffering of cancer victims and of their families and friends. He also told the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that he hoped that the matter would be expedited as quickly as possible. Almost a year later, nothing has been done. John Hall has spent the last year receiving chemotherapy and blood transfusions in order to stay alive. Will the Prime Minister please show some compassion and award John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans the compensation that the House and the country believe they richly deserve?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) renders Mr. Hall's case particular assistance in raising it in this fashion. I cannot go into the details of Mr. Hall's case. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are willing to consider any claim where any evidence can be adduced of exposure to radiation. We are conducting a validating study into the background of this, and as soon as it is complete, we can reach a general policy conclusion. Until then, I simply have no evidence on which to base a response to individual cases such as Mr. Hall's.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the tax implications of an extra £35 billion of spending pledges? If any Government were to bring in these pledges, they would either have to dishonour them and thereby deceive the public, or income tax payers at all levels of income would need to cough up and pay more to fund them. Is it not true that spending pledges such as those made by Labour politicians would mean that nothing would happen?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Prime Minister answers, let me repeat that a Member must ask questions about matters for which the Prime Minister is responsible; he cannot answer for Labour party policies. Answer the first part, please.
    The Prime Minister: The implications of such spending increases are either that borrowing would rise to unprecedented levels, and no doubt interest rates with them, or, alternatively, that taxes would rise to a remarkable extent. It is noteworthy that those who advocate these policies also themselves concede in surveys that they would welcome an increase in the basic rate of tax as well as other tax increases.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall that the cause of reconciliation in Northern Ireland was tragically set back in the aftermath of the 1974 election? Will he agree that it would be appalling if we were to allow history to repeat itself after this election? Will he therefore support a cross-party approach to Northern Ireland affairs during the election and unequivocally reject any partisan trading with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in a way that would reverse the peace process after the next election?
    The Prime Minister: This party stands four square against terrorism, and we have set out our policies from this Dispatch Box on many occasions. I see no imminent change.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a diabolical liberty for people to suggest that they can increase people's taxes by the underhand method of raising national insurance contributions, as is proposed by the Labour party? Is it not true that the choice for the British people is between our party, which calls for lower taxes and greater spending by the people, and the Labour party, which wants to take people's money and spend it itself? Is not that robbing Peter to pay Paul?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes her point in her own individual manner. As I have said before, if people advocate spending and tax increases, they should be prepared to defend them. The Labour party knows that its spending and taxation plans have been rumbled—and they dislike it.
    Mr. Barron: Is the Prime Minister aware that, this morning, the Selby group of the British Coal Corporation announced more than 1,100 job losses at four coal mines? Will he get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to take action now, as he has been urged to do by the European Energy Commissioner, to stop pit closures in this country, given that we produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in the European Community? How long will the country continue to lose jobs and to lose access to the great national asset of our coal, given that the Government want to sell off British Coal overnight at a cheap price, for the benefit of the Treasury?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear of the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the only secure future for the coal industry or, indeed, for any other industry, is for it to produce something that people want at a price that people can afford. That is the only long-term future for the coal industry.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the House to calm down. I cannot even hear the words, "point of order". I shall take Mr. Andrew Faulds first.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, in your judgment, Sir, a question is out of order, how can it be in order for the Prime Minister to have a response?
    Mr. Speaker: What I said to the Prime Minister was that he should answer that part of the question to him that was in order.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members can fully understand why Conservative Members do not want to ask the Prime Minister questions about Government policy, but can you confirm that the purpose and function of Prime Minister's Question Time is to ask the Prime Minister questions about the performance of his Government? Opposition Members would welcome the opportunity to debate Government and Opposition policies during the general election campaign, but, given that the Prime Minister does not have the guts to call an election, can you please ensure that, during the few remaining weeks of the Government's period of office, Prime Minister's Question Time will he used to ask the Prime Minister questions about Government policy?
    Mr. Speaker: In my judgment, the election campaign started when we came back from the Christmas recess —[Interruption.] Order. It has ever been thus. If the hon. Gentleman will think back to days gone by, he will remember that such questions have been perennial in the few weeks before a general election. However, I say again to the House and especially to Government Members that they should ask questions relating to the Prime Minister's responsibility—
    Mr. Ian Taylor rose
    Mr. Speaker: No, please sit down.
    The first part of the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) was in order, but the second part was out of order, as was the second part of the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is in order for Conservative Members to put various policy options to the Prime Minister, and surely what really provoked the rabble opposite to make such a din is that they are embarrassed at the sound of their own policies.
    Mr. Speaker: Outlining options is in order.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Is it not in order for Back Benchers at least to ask the Prime Minister whether the policies that are being promoted by the Opposition will most emphatically not be adopted by this Government? The Opposition are worried about their own policies.
    Mr. Speaker: I have already said that options are in order.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and the fact that the news did not come early enough to make a Standing Order 20 application today, I wonder whether, if an application is made for one tomorrow, you will give consideration to enabling the House to discuss this important problem in the mining industry?
Mr. Speaker: It should have been submitted today.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that for some time now there has been a policy of inspired questions being tabled deliberately with the object of stopping Opposition Members from putting genuine questions? Will you take this up with the usual channels, because it is making a farce of Question Time? You ought to intervene with members of the two Front. Benches to sort this out.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for the questions on the Order Paper, provided they are in order. I have no idea whether they have been planted, and I am not responsible for the answers that are given.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In seeking to maintain the quality of debate in the House in the period leading up to the election, is it appropriate or parliamentary for the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) to intimate that the Prime Minister has not got guts, which is tantamount to calling him a coward? I hope that it is not appropriate and that you consider that it does not lead to good quality debate.
Mr. Speaker: To paraphrase "Erskine May", moderation in language is the keynote to good order in the Chamber.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that you, Mr. Speaker, have declared that the election has begun, and as you believe in fairness—your job demands it—I have a solution to the problem of the Tories continually wanting to know all about Labour party policies. We have four Question Times each week. We will have our side on the
184
Tory Benches for two days and their side on these Benches for the other two. Then they can ask as many questions as they like.
Mr. Speaker: That is an ingenious suggestion, but I think that I had better not give my personal views.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We should move on. We have a very heavy day ahead of us.
Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) pointed out that 1,100 jobs are to go in Yorkshire. A substantial number of them are in my constituency. Therefore, in view of the fact that we cannot have a debate under Standing Order 20, will you prevail upon the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement so that we can question him on the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what has been said about this matter, of which I had no knowledge before 12 o'clock, has been heard by the Leader of the House.
I will take one more point of order. I call Mr. Kevin Barron, since he raised the matter.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The British Coal Corporation has got it down to an art now. Anything that it says about job losses is always said after 12 noon, when it is impossible to make an application for a debate. Indeed, it announced the closure of the Grimethorpe fluidised bed programme today, and the press release was marked "Embargoed until 1 pm".
Mr. Speaker: May I stop the hon. Member there?
Mr. Barron: They come in here and use the procedure—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the information came out after 12 o'clock? If that is the case, I would certainly consider an application tomorrow under Standing Order 20, but now we should move on.
Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had one opportunity today. We must move on.

Representation of the People (Amendment)
3.39 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to provide that each parliamentary constituency shall be represented by a woman and by a man; to make a consequential reorganisation of constituency boundaries; and for connected purposes.
I wish to introduce the Bill to enable more women to be elected to the House. It will not have escaped your eagle eye, Mr. Speaker, that the mother of Parliaments consists largely of fathers and that, despite the 64 years in which women have had the vote and the many able women who have put themselves forward for selection as parliamentary candidates, less than 6 per cent. of the Members of the House are women. I do not seek special privileges for women. I simply seek to redress an anomaly in our legislative procedure. That can be done without disturbing the position of any existing Member.
We have women's issues in politics, but we do not have men's issues. That is becuse there is a good number of men in the Chamber who will take up issues relating to men. Because there are relatively few women Members, both political parties pay lip service to the idea of having more women, yet seem unable to achieve that objective.
There is no question but that women make admirable and competent politicians all the way up to the level of Prime Minister. There is no lack of talent among women. In the last decade women have made enormous strides. They are better educated. More of them go to university. They are better trained. As many women as men are now training in most professions. They have better jobs. They earn better salaries and wages. But their representation in the House still does not reflect the fact that half the population are women. In that respect, Parliament is trailing behind public opinion and the reforms which we have seen elsewhere in the community.
My proposal would not mean doubling the number of Members of Parliament, it would not threaten the position of any existing Member, but it would improve the choice for the voter. I propose the introduction of a system whereby each constituency would put up a list of men candidates and a list of women candidates and a voter would have two votes, choosing one from each list. That could easily be achieved by the Boundary Commission amalgamating constituencies so that each constituency would be represented by two Members.
There would be other advantages. If, for example, a person was so small-minded as not to want a woman to represent him, he could still vote for a man. If, on the other hand, someone would rather take up problems with a woman, that person would, under my proposal, eventually have a woman Member to approach. With natural wastage and retirement, it would take three or four elections to achieve that goal.
In Germany, all constituencies have two Members of Parliament, two lists of candidates and two votes. It is common for people in Britain to vote for two or more candidates in local government elections. In the United
186
States each state is represented by two senators, often from different parties, so that there is one Republican and one Democrat. That shows that there is nothing complicated or difficult in what I am proposing.
As I have said, I am not seeking to promote any advantage for women; I simply seek equality. A woman is regarded by many selection committees, for better or worse, as not being the typical Member of Parliament. The image of a Member is still that of a man. We have to overcome that prejudice.
The House should be a mirror reflecting all aspects of society. It should reflect the ambitions, aspirations and concerns of the majority of electors who are women. Although I do not deny that under the Conservative party of the last decade women have made enormous strides, it is still a contentious issue that every time there is an election we have to have special women's areas and policies.
I disagree with positive discrimination. I disagree also with the idea that there should be a Minister for women's affairs. Neither of those matters would be political issues, however, if it were natural for every voter in Britain to have the opportunity on his ballot paper to vote for both a man and a woman. By adopting that approach we would take the issues of women's politics and feminism outside the deliberations of the House.
3.45 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to make a long speech, but I cannot allow my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to get away with this nonsense. As a former teaching colleague of mine said, this is just plain daft. In 22 years in the House I have never heard a more silly proposition put before it. In deference to your successors, Mr. Speaker, who will sit in the Chair and decide, if my hon. Friend's Bill is enacted, whether to call the male Member or the female Member for a constituency, to our constituents and to the Parliament that we all seek to serve, we should quickly throw out the Bill without ceremony.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mrs. Gorman: Mrs. Edwina Currie, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. David Amess, who in the circumstances I propose to be my pair, and myself, Sir.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. David Amess.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to provide that each parliamentary constituency shall be represented by a woman and by a man; to make a consequential reorganisation of constituency boundaries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
Orders of the Day

  Asylum Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.49 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note with regret that proposed new clauses 8 and 9 were not selected for debate. New clause 9 dealt with the difficult problem of special care for the unaccompanied children of asylum seekers. That aspect was debated at length in Committee, but was not pressed to a Division after the Minister indicated that he might be having further thoughts.
  New clause 9 dealt in effect with the difficult problem confronting London boroughs. About 30,000 asylum-seeking households will come to this country this year, and the majority will arrive in London. That will place a heavy burden on London boroughs. Again, that aspect was discussed at length in Committee, there was no Division, and the Minister indicated that he might have further thoughts.
  As those two issues are important, may I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how one may raise them during today's debate?
  Mr. Speaker: They may certainly be raised on Third Reading. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always examine carefully all amendments that are submitted, and in particular whether any undertakings were definitely given in Committee. I am not required to give the reasons for my selection of amendments, but in the case of new clause 8, new legislation is not required.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was considerable debate in Committee on the future of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service—particularly in relation to the future provision of advice and representation for those seeking political asylum, but also in respect of broader immigration matters.
  Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department met the executive committee of UKIAS. There has been considerable press speculation in the last few weeks about UKIAS's future arrangements. It appears that the Government are seeking to establish an autonomous refugee unit that would remain part of UKIAS, but would put the rest of that organisation on notice that unless it agreed to proposals to introduce a new constitution, executive, and management committee, there would be a clear prospect of no future funding for UKIAS.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of all those matters, which are for the Government to consider, not me. Those are the very questions that the hon. Gentleman should seek to raise in the debate that will follow. If the Government have made a decision of that kind, there will be opportunities to debate it on the Floor of the House or perhaps in another place.
  Mr. Madden: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I wondered whether the Under-Secretary had indicated to you when he will make a statement about the Government's proposals for the future of UKIAS and of advice and representation. No amendment relates directly
  188
  to UKIAS, which is a major pillar on which this squalid Bill rests. That pillar seems to be extremely creaky. When will the Minister tell the House what he has agreed with UKIAS, what will be available to those seeking political asylum in terms of advice and administration, and what is the future of UKIAS? That major organisation seems to be in chaos.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of any of that, though I am interested from the point of view of my own constituency. Those questions should be addressed to the Minister. The remarks made by the hon. Gentleman under the guise of a point of order will have been heard by the relevant Ministers on the Front Bench—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will receive an answer to his questions if he puts them during the debate.
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the same matter.
  Mr. Winnick: I merely want your advice, Mr. Speaker. As you may or may not know, I am a former chairman of UKIAS. I am not involved in any way with the organisation now, but its position is a matter of legitimate concern not only to hon. Members who are in the Chamber but to many others who—as you have said, Mr. Speaker—have advised constituents, or their relatives or friends, to go to that organisation.
  It would, of course, be helpful if, during our debate on the new clauses, the Minister referred to the discussions that he had yesterday. I realise that that is entirely outside your control, Mr. Speaker, but it would be rather unfortunate if we engaged in a lengthy debate on various clauses without knowing the Government's intentions.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said a number of reports have appeared in the newspapers. We do not know whether those reports are accurate, and—like my hon. Friend—I am in no way involved in any form of mischief-making. The position of UKIAS is very important, and it would help the House a good deal if the Home Secretary or the Minister could tell us whether the matter will be dealt with in our initial debate.
  Mr. Speaker: Those are not matters for me, but the hon. Gentleman's remarks may serve as a warning to the Minister that they may be raised in the debate.

New Clause 2

  REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE
  '.—(1) Within three months of this Act receiving the Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on arrangements made by him for ensuring that persons making a claim for asylum and asylum-seekers (called in this section "applicants") have satisfactory access to advice and representation from advisers and representatives of their choice and where necessary access to independent interpreters.
  (2) Such a report shall describe the arrangements made for ensuring that access to advisers and representatives of an applicant's choice is not hindered nor inhibited by the applicant's lack of means, language, age or the fact that the applicant has been detained, and that advice and representation is provided without undue delay.'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]
  Brought up and read the First time.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take new clause 10—

  ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE—
  '.—(1) A person who is in detention at a port of entry, an immigration detention centre, or other premises and is making an asylum claim shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice privately at any time.
  (2) A custody record shall be kept for a person who is in detention at a port of entry, an immigration detention centre or other premises, and is making an asylum claim.
  (3) A request under subsection (1) above and the time at which it was made shall be recorded in the custody record or record of the interview or the appropriate record of detention.
  (4) If a person making an asylum claim makes such a request, he must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice as soon as is practicable.
  (5) At any interview or hearing in connection with a claim for asylum a person must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice, and must be informed of this entitlement in advance of the interview or hearing, in the language of his choice.'.
  Mr. Hattersley: The purpose of the new clause is, or ought to be, wholly uncontentious and wholly unexeptionable. Our intention is simply to ensure that persons seeking asylum in this country are guaranteed adequate legal advice and representation. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could oppose that proposition, or vote against a new clause that literally does no more than lay a requirement on the Government and their successors.
  During our previous debate on the Bill, the Opposition took particular exception to many of the legal aspects. The argument was not about the propriety of keeping bogus
  asylum seekers out of the country; on that, all three parties are united. It was about the legal procedures whereby the process should be carried out.
  I am happy to say—this is directly relevant to a measure that concerns legal provision and legal services—that in a number of particulars, all related to the operation of the law, the Government have capitulated over the past few days. The new rules—placed in the Library at midday, I understand, and thus available only to the most perceptive Members and those who read fastest set out a number of the changes in legal procedures for which we called. Let me give some examples.
  The period in which an appeal may be mounted has been increased to 10 days. Applicants who arrive without documents—and who, originally, would be assumed to be fraudulent or trying to break the immigration and asylum regulations—will now be able to advance reasonable explanations of why their documents are deficient. Applicants will not find that the actions of other persons are held against them when they apply to remain here. It
  appears, at least, that oral hearings—about which we said so much on Second Reading, and about which my hon.
  Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said so much in Committee—are to become more regular and more common. They may even take place invariably; no doubt the Minister will interpret the rules.
  All those changes improve the Bill enormously. If I did not welcome them, I might even describe them as a climbdown. I have read with some amusement the comments that the Home Secretary made about our
  190
  suggestions when we made them on Second Reading three months ago. None the less, although these improvements, or capitulations, are very welcome, they emphasise the basic principle that underlies the new clause: the absolute necessity for the applicant who takes advantage of the improved procedures to be provided with the legal services, counselling and representation that meet his or her needs.
  To understand the present position, the House must remind itself of the history of legal representation and of the Government's attitude towards it. On 2 July the Home Secretary told the House that he intended to withdraw legal aid from asylum seekers. The green form scheme was to be abandoned for asylum seekers, particularly asylum seekers facing appeal. He said that the work carried out on behalf of many asylum seekers by solicitors acting under the provisions of the legal aid arrangements was to be carried out entirely by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service—which I cannot bring myself to call "Yewkyass" because it sounds more like a Hittite king than an organisation in Britain in 1992.
  4 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I had the temerity to ask the Home Secretary, after he had made his statement, whether he was sure that that organisation was the best organisation to carry out the work, whether it had the funds to do it, whether it was equipped to do it and whether it was prepared to do it. With typical foolishness, the Home Secretary accused us of casting a slur on UKIAS by even suggesting that it was important to determine whether that was the appropriate organisation to carry out the work.
  Today—far from insisting that UKIAS be the sole provider of legal advice for asylum seekers—the Home Secretary proposes to prohibit it from doing any of the work. The Government intend to remove altogether the refugee unit from UKIAS. A letter sent yesterday, and I think also received yesterday, from the Under-Secretary of State to UKIAS is adamant, specific and unequivocal. The grant which covers work done by and for asylum seekers is to be removed. The letter also threatens to transfer all UKIAS grants—that is, for work done with immigration as well as asylum seekers—to a new body.
  That new body is not specified in the letter. I understand that the Government have not yet determined what that new body should be. That new body is to be set up, but under what constitution no one knows. All we know is that during the last four months the Government have moved their position by 180 deg. In July, only UKIAS was to be allowed to do the work. Now anybody else, somebody else, an unspecified institution, is to do the work because UKIAS is deficient in every particular.
  We have to ask why UKIAS is deemed to be unsuitable to carry out these tasks. I doubt whether the Under-Secretary of State will tell us that it is because of its managerial incompetence, because the chairman of UKIAS is the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Small Heath division of Birmingham. I suspect that he will say things that are not over-specific and that he will leave us with the general impression that the Home Secretary and his colleagues are simply dissatisfied with the way in which the work might be carried on.
  The truth of the matter is very different. The truth is that UKIAS rightly, in my view, stated within hours of the

  191
  Home Secretary's statement that it was wholly wrong that one agency should be the exclusive provider of legal assistance to asylum seekers. One might argue that that was very much against its own direct interests. If UKIAS had wanted to enhance its status, or to increase its grant, it might have said, "We will do the work and we shall let nobody else do it." However, UKIAS said—in my view, wholly properly—that in this area it was important that a choice of legal advice should be provided.
  Who can argue with the contention that a man or woman, threatened with a return to persecution or death, should have the right to make a choice between different solicitors and different barristers rather than to be allocated legal advice by and from an institution which I very much admire but which in the eyes of many asylum seekers, who have come not from democracies but from tyrannies, is funded by the Government and, therefore, is likely to be biased in the Government's favour? I certainly do not make that accusation against UKIAS. I have had nothing but help from the service in my constituency. The work that it does in Birmingham, the only area in which I have direct experience of its practices, is admirable in every particular.
  However, we delude ourselves if we do not admit and understand that when a man or woman comes here from a tyranny or a totalitarian state and applies for asylum, the idea that their case for staying should be argued by an institution that is funded by the Government who are trying to prevent them from staying is a clear deterrent to their accepting the advice and going through the process. That was the view of the Opposition, the Bar, the Law Society and the Commission for Racial Equality. It was also the view of UKIAS, which said simply that it did not believe that it should be given the work exclusively and that the green form scheme legal aid should be preserved. That is why the Government have chosen to take the work away from it.
  One option open to the Government was to lose face by admitting that they were wrong in July and saying that, while UKIAS goes on with much of the work, the legal aid green form provision will continue. That would have been the sort of climbdown that the Home Secretary does not enjoy, even though he has become increasingly used to that over the past six months. That, together with the other five capitulations in the regulations, would, I suspect, have been too much for the Home Secretary to swallow. Therefore, the organisation is to have its powers to provide legal assistance for asylum seekers removed and it has been threatened with the total removal of its grant, which would mean that it would virtually come to a halt and be destroyed.
  I do not want to detain the House with procedural questions, but there is the question of the letter between the Under-Secretary and UKIAS which was sent yesterday and which will be the subject of some debate as the new clause is discussed. I assume that if the Minister refers to it, that paper, being an official document written by a Minister of the Crown, must be put in the Library and made available to all hon. Members. Anyone who reads the letter will understand that, as was the case in the autumn, the Government are again threatening UKIAS. They are saying, "Do what we require of you, act as our agent, or your grant will be totally removed and your existence will, at least, be threatened, and you will probably be obliterated." That is intolerable for a Government relationship with an agency that spends
  192
  much of its time arguing against Government decisions on immigration and asylum. The United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service should not be the creature of the Government. Its nature should be independent. That is an example of the standards that are now common under this Government; an agency that they fund has to bend to the Minister's will or its funds are arbitrarily removed.
  The Under-Secretary should announce—I doubt whether he will, and it will be left to us to introduce the proper procedures in two or three months—that the Government will bite the bullet and accept the error. He should say that legal aid will continue to be made available to asylum seekers entering this country and appealing against orders for their exclusion. Having made it clear that legal aid will remain, he should then say that UKIAS shall continue to do the work that is freely given to it by asylum seekers who choose the legal route. I do not mind if he also says that he is interested in the central administration of UKIAS or that he wants the Government auditors to keep an eye on how the money is spent. That is a normal, sober and sensible provision when Government grants go to outside agencies. However, the principle is clear: legal aid should remain and a man or woman under threat should be enabled to choose the representation that they think best suits their case.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The right hon. Gentleman talked about choosing representation. It has never been open to an immigrant appellant asylum seeker under ordinary immigration rules to have representation paid for by the state from legal aid, which is what the right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting. It has always been that representation before a tribunal would be paid for when it was an immigration tribunal, but only through UKIAS. That was the arrangement when the Labour Government were in office. Has the right hon. Gentleman now abandoned that practice and is he saying that UKIAS will no longer have the monopoly of free representation as it does now, or has he confused himself about legal aid and green forms, representation and advice? It sounds as if he has from what he is saying?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have not confused myself, but I fear that I have confused the Minister. What I am saying—and what I repeat as my final word—is that we should revert to
  the system that operated successfully before the Home Secretary's announcement on 2 July. That announcement curtailed the green form scheme, abandoned legal aid—
  Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry to intervene again and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The green form scheme has not been curtailed. The Home Secretary's statement and the Lord Chancellor's statement contained merely a proposal to the effect that they were considering the idea. It has not been done.
  Mr. Hattersley: The statement said categorically that it was the Home Secretary's intention to abandon green forms and legal aid altogether in this matter and to concentrate the entire work on UKIAS. If the Under-Secretary wants to pick me up on my tenses, he is right to say that it was not done then, but it was announced then. That is a distinction of such triviality that it does not profit the House to waste its time on it. The statement made it clear—and I shall read it to the Home Secretary if I get the opportunity to intervene again—that that was the

  193
  Government's firm intention, against which I and my hon. Friends argued. It was an intention which UKIAS resisted, and it is because of that resistance that it is to be disbanded. If the Under-Secretary is saying that the Home Secretary never had any intention of abandoning the legal aid system altogether in this respect, he has only to say that he does not intend to do so now and we shall applaud that decision and expect him to support the new clause.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The Under Secretary's statement was interesting because it seemed to say that the Government are beginning to think again about their express intention to remove the availability of the green form scheme to those who seek to apply for the status of refugee. If that is no longer the Government's intention, that will be broadly and warmly welcomed, not only by the Opposition but by all those outside the House who are concerned about the constitutional implication of the Home Secretary's announcement at that time.
  There is an important constitutional issue which should not be forgotten. It should be the right of every person who seeks to avail himself of a remedy available to him in law to have available to him advice that is not only in fact independent but is perceived to be independent. The great problem with what the Government proposed at that time—we look forward to them announcing that they no longer propose it—is that advice from that quarter would not be perceived as being independent. It would not be perceived as being advice on which the refugee or the applicant for refugee status could safely rely.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made that clear when he referred the Secretary of State and the Minister to the fact that such people are coming from countries in which, very often, the rule of law has been abandoned and where they cannot rely on the protection of the courts or on the independence of the judiciary and the legal system. That makes it all the more important for us with our tradition of respect for the rule of law to be able to offer a service and to hold out a system that guarantees those applicants not only the fact of independent advice but the perception of independent advice. It is absolutely central to our concept of the rule of law and to all that the legal aid system has stood for. To renege on that—to appear to do so—is something that we simply cannot afford, and the House should not allow that to happen.
  4.15 pm
  Are we to hear from the Minister that we need not fear because, after due reflection, the Government have decided to abandon the proposal or, if not abandoned it, will ensure that the exclusive agency for advice—which particularly relates to the amendment—and/or representation can be relied on as being independent and perceived to be so?
  We should be reassured on that issue because to those of us who observe such matters it appears that what is happening to UKIAS is an all-too-clear sign of the fact that when such agencies seek to behave and sound as if they are at arm's length from the Government—giving independent advice and expressing views that are not likely to find favour with the Government, of whatever political persuasion—their grants and functions are at risk—[Interruption.] It is all very well the Home Secretary
  194
  muttering into what might in other circumstances be his beard but what, in fact, are his whiskers, but the perception of the House and the general public is that UKIAS is being punished for having dared to stand up to the Government when they made the proposal that they now seem to be backing out of—to remove the right of access to the green form scheme for those who seek to apply for refugee status.
  The public and House are justified in their view. The green form scheme has served this country well, as it has those who seek to utilise our legal system. It would be a tragedy if it were to be denied any groups.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker)rose
  Mr. Boateng: I hope that the Home Secretary is rising to assure us that that was never his intention and is not now his proposal. If it will assist him if I continue speaking a little longer, I shall happily do so.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman earlier claimed that it was the public perception that the Government would cease to fund UKIAS because that organisation did not agree with Government policy. May I make it absolutely clear that it has not been the policy of this Government or any previous Government to undermine the independence of UKIAS and the advice that it gives. All those who have been connected with UKIAS during the past few months will have regretted what has happened to it and its internal difficulties.
  Mr. Winnick indicated assent.
  Mr. Baker: I see that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who was formerly chairman of UKIAS, is nodding and I am sure that his view is shared by all hon. Members.
  The meeting yesterday of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with UKIAS was positive. It has been alleged that the proposals are politically motivated, but that is not so. I want to make it absolutely clear that the proposals that the Government put to UKIAS yesterday were fully supported by the United Nations convention on refugees. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will shortly tell the House about those proposals.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate is useful and should prompt the Minister to give an early report on the state of play of the continuing discussions that he has had with those concerned about the provision of advice and the representation of asylum seekers. It is a late stage in the Bill's proceedings for us to be left in such doubt about the direction of the Government's thinking.
  Some would say that it would be more appropriate not to proceed with primary legislation—changing the law so fundamentally, making a change of such substance—until the Government had a clear idea of the procedures that should be built in for the purpose of protecting applicants from the patently oppressive provisions that the Bill encapsulates. However, that is not the way in which the Government proceed. At least, it is not the way in which the Home Office proceeds. The Home Office announces its conclusions and then proceeds to rewrite them during the passage of legislation—and this is no exception.

  195
  What has happened can be explained in terms of the Government's uncertainty about the timing of the election. The initial announcements in July had more to do with the possibility of an imminent autumn election than with the need to bring forward precise legislative proposals. Indeed, when the next phase unfolded, an autumn election—a November election—was still an option, but that, too, was snatched away from the Government. No doubt they hoped that answers to the awkward questions raised by Members on both sides of the House would not need to be given before completion of the earlier stages of the Bill. This is a case study on how not to legislate. Indeed, the Home Office could provide us with many examples.
  With regard to the substance of the proposal of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Government have a duty to give Parliament full answers to all the questions—questions raised in the Standing Committee and at other stages of the Bill—about the advice that will be available. There will not be an opportunity today to discuss in detail a subject that was debated very fully in Committee. I refer to the representation, advice and care that would be available to children coming into the country. The new clause refers to the age of those seeking such help, and it gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to say what particular consideration he has given to the representations made by the Save the Children Fund, the Children's Legal Centre and many other organisations that are concerned about the relatively small number of minors who come in without assistance, very often having been put on international transport by terrified parents anxious to get them out of danger.
  There have been reports—one of them appeared in The Independent today—of an Ethiopian child whose mother was seeking to avoid his conscription to fight against the Eritrean rebels. No doubt the case has been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State. These are real cases. They give rise to great anxiety, and they merit special and separate Government consideration for vulnerable children—the people whom, above all, this House would wish to protect.
  I hope that the Minister will be in a position to announce, in response to this debate, the conclusion of the Lord Chancellor following his announcement about the green form. That proposal has certainly met with uniform hostility from all those in this country concerned with the rule of law and with ensuring that the due process of law is followed.
  The ability to obtain advice from professional advisers, or such advisers as the person in need of advice wishes, is an integral part of our judicial system and is essential if we are not to have a legal system very different from that which we have enjoyed in the past.
  The Lord Chancellor has certainly been deeply concerned about the extent of increased funding required for legal aid, and quite separate proposals on that subject have been considered by the House on one or two occasions. As a result of the Government's decision, the Lord Chancellor has recently become responsible for the operation of these matters in the magistrates courts, and that may have opened his eyes to difficulties that have hitherto rested with the Home Office.
  Great though the difficulties flowing from the expanded legal aid fund are, however, we must not allow the Government to whittle away the long-established rights of
  196
  vulnerable people coming to our shores. We in this country have a record of concern that must not be diminished in the eyes of those who observe our affairs.
  I warmly welcome the new clause and I hope that the Government will use the debate to explain in full where we stand before we proceed any further with the Bill.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I must admit that I am attracted by the part of the new clause that says that the proposed report
  "shall describe the arrangements made for ensuring that access to advisers and representatives of an applicant's choice is not hindered nor inhibited by the applicant's … age".
  Between Christmas and the new year, three unaccompanied Somali children arrived in my constituency. My local social services department has some experience of dealing with both unaccompanied children and Somalis. Somalis make up more than a third of the 89 refugee families, with 216 children, who have recently arrived in Bromley.
  The social services department will be hard pressed, however, to find accommodation and adequate medical support for the children. Most of the unaccompanied children who arrive have substantial medical problems which are difficult to diagnose, and distinct linguistic problems arise in their dealings with doctors. There will also be considerable problems in fitting the children into our education system. They have little idea of how to cope with schools and no knowledge of the English language.
  While trying to cope with those problems, my social services department cannot possibly hope to provide the children with sensible advice about asylum-seeking procedures. It is important that asylum-seeking children should be assigned special guardians to look after their special needs. If we did that, we would merely be following in the footsteps of our Community partners.
  In Denmark, France, Germany, Holland and Italy, unaccompanied refugee children are already allocated a special person who is responsible for looking after their interests, both in terms of care and of asylum procedure. In several Community countries, such as Denmark, France and Holland, all the care and advice expenses of unaccompanied asylum seekers are paid by central Government. In France and Germany, there are special procedures for ensuring that a child's case is dealt with quickly.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something about the problem of advice for unaccompanied children. Sadly, the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. We should follow our Community partners in assigning special advisers to unaccompanied children who arrive on our shores.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, I think, agreed that the letter from the Under-Secretary of State to UKIAS of 20 January, being a document under discussion in this debate and an official Government document, should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons for general observation. That letter is one of a series of letters between the Minister and UKIAS. Do you agree that the entire series should be in the Library for hon. Members' perusal? I am particularly concerned about a letter of 7 October, which actually states in terms that,

  197
  unless UKIAS accepts the Government's policy, its grant will be withdrawn, which is exactly the threat that the Home Secretary has denied was ever made.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member is putting words in my mouth. I did not make that ruling at all. It is not a state paper; it is correspondence. It has never been the rule for correspondence to be placed in the Library. We have yet to hear from the Under-Secretary of State exactly what the letter contains.
  Mr. Winnick: It would have been much better, of course, if we had seen the correspondence over UKIAS, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, or if we had had a statement; hence my strong support for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). If, at the outset, we had had a statement about precisely what the Government intend to do about the funding of UKIAS and the future arrangements of that organisation, we would have been in a better position to debate the subject.
  That organisation, with which I was involved—I have already informed the House that I have no involvement at present—has undoubtedly undertaken excellent work since it was set up in 1970. I was very pleased when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook mentioned that he advised constituents to use the Birmingham office. As my constituency is in the west midlands, I follow the same course. I have had no complaint—none whatsoever —about the work that has been undertaken by the Birmingham office of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
  UKIAS was started when the appeal system was introduced on 1 July 1970. Some people have queried whether the organisation is independent. They have asked, "If the organisation is funded by the Government, how can it argue against the Government decisions?" There is no dilemma of course. Other organisations are funded by the Government—citizens advice bureaux, for example. No one questions the integrity of the CAB. Indeed, if there were no Government funding, it would be difficult for that organisation to exist.
  The UKIAS was publicly funded and brought into operation as a result of the legislation of a Labour Government and continued by a Conservative Government, but its independence is not questioned, certainly not by Opposition Members. As I have often said, if one questions its independence, one has only to go to a hearing and listen to the UKIAS representative argue the case against the Home Office, and let me know whether the organisation is independent.
  So we are not therefore querying the independence of the organisation. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook had any doubts at all, he would hardly advise his constituents to go to the Birmingham office of the UKIAS and nor would I. My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear and has taken the opportunity today to praise the integrity of the organisation.
  As has been rightly argued by Labour Members, however, if UKIAS is the sole agency and if legal aid is abolished in such cases, people could come to a different conclusion. If people are forced to use UKIAS because there is no alternative, because they have not the financial
  198
  means, the organisation may well be described as acting on behalf of the Government, however unfair that accusation may be.
  This is an important point and it is why, in my view quite rightly, the executive of UKIAS, despite all the internal differences and the rest, unanimously came to the view that it was wrong to take on the work as a sole agency: it believed that, if it so did, its integrity and independence would be compromised.
  The crux of the matter in new clause 2 is in the words
  "representation from advisers and representatives of their choice".
  There is no doubt in my mind that, in the large majority of cases in which refugee asylum is being dealt with and in which appeals are to be heard or advice sought on the possibility of making an appeal, UKIAS would be used. But there is a difference between a large majority of people rightly choosing to use UKIAS and a situation in which they had simply no alternative. The statement of the Home Secretary to the House earlier certainly gave the impression that UKIAS would be the sole agency, and that is what we really object to. I hope that the point will be clearly established today that legal aid will be available for people if they so wish.
  If the refugee section of UKIAS is not to remain in existence—I have not seen the letter but, as I said earlier, it would have been much better if we knew precisely where we were on this issue—and if there is to be a successor to UKIAS for refugee work, the House is entitled to know what will be the make-up of the organisation, what will be the management body, and what will be its relationship in its fund-raising role with the Government. These are important questions. The reason why UKIAS has had the confidence of most people over nearly 22 years is that everyone has known the position. There has been no secret. It has been funded by the Government—that was made clear from the beginning—and its make-up and internal decision-making has been, as it must be, a matter for the organisation itself.
  I deplore some of the disagreements which have arisen in UKIAS. It is not unique: we even have disagreements, so I am told, in political parties from time to time. I deeply regret that some of these differences have come to the fore, and I wish that they could have been avoided. However, that is no reason—I hope that the Home Secretary is listening to my viewpoint—why the organisation should be discontinued. The Home Secretary is nodding.
  If we agree that excellent work is being undertaken and that the staff are dedicated people who believe in the importance of their work and who feel an obligation to their clients—otherwise they should not be doing the job in the first place—it would be unfortunate if, because of some internal differences, which I hope will be cleared up—I understand that there is to be a meeting of UKIAS on Wednesday—the Home Secretary came to the view that the organisation itself, leaving aside the refugee section, should be dismantled. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the House today what he has in mind.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to comment on the activities of some of the charities that are concerned with assisting those who are applicants for refugee status. He may have noticed a recent report in the News of the World—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: An authoritative source. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Tebbit: Opposition Front-Bench Members may laugh, but they should take such matters more seriously.
  The article related to a gentleman who, in one of his guises, was claiming to be one of my constituents. His name was Mr. Avedila. He had not only an address in my constituency, but 14 other addresses. So far, it has been discovered that he has a total of 15 identities. In each of those identities, he was claiming the maximum benefits available. It appears that, apart from housing benefit amounting to about £400 per week, he was netting some £790 per week in other benefits—in 15 different names. I have conducted some investigations and have found that it is absurdly easy to do that—
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Apart from his anxiety to catch television prime time—perhaps it was an appointment in a television studio that prevented the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) from attending the earlier part of the debate what on earth has his contribution to do with the new clause? If I am correct in thinking that his comments are out of order, am I also correct in thinking that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will shortly advise the right hon. Gentleman that he is out of order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must be very careful, but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is using a particular case to illustrate a general point. So far, I have heard nothing that is out of order.
  Mr. Tebbit: Having been a Member of the House for 22 years, I am certain that, if the Chair believed that an hon. Member was out of order, the Chair would say so before being advised in general by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). If you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. Gentleman in a by-line that I have recently returned from my constituency of Chingford, and that that is what delayed me and prevented me from being present earlier.
  My specific point relates to an organisation that is called the British Refugee Council which I understand is involved in these matters. Mr. Avedila had 15 letters from the British Refugee Council, all of which held his photograph, in 15 different names. In what I imagine is a standard form, each of those letters states:
  "This is to introduce the above-named refugee who has applied to the Home Office for political asylum. In the meantime we would be grateful if you would consider this letter as evidence of our client's identity"—
  all 15 of them.
  It seems extraordinarily easy to fool both the authorities and the British Refugee Council, because I am sure that that body was being fooled and was not conniving in such a dishonest trick.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I do not know the cases to which my right hon. Friend is referring, I am not necessarily sure that the organisations were conned. The letters may be forgeries. I am afraid that we come across forgeries in our police and detection work, and that those letters may be examples of it.
  Mr. Tebbit: In that case, I must ask my hon. Friend whether he will investigate whether those letters were forgeries—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Home
  200
  Secretary is as capable of reading the newspapers as I am. I should like him to look into this matter and to tell me what steps he is taking to avoid such a matter recurring.
  Mr. David Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me, as a member of the British Refugee Council, that that most honourable organisation would never connive in any form of illegal activity? Clearly, therefore, there may well have been a forgery, but what has happened would certainly not have been with the knowledge of the British Refugee Council.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to hear that from my hon. Friend. However, what has happened suggests that it is all too easy to make forgeries and to fool the authorities. Perhaps my right hon. Friends could do something to improve the standard of checking such records.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Tebbit: I think that I can do without the hon. Gentleman's help.
  As the House knows, it is extremely easy to obtain false documentation from the authorities. It is extremely easy to obtain false passports or even to have genuine passports issued to people who do not exist.
  Mr. Winnick: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Give it to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Tebbit: The Home Secretary is aware of these matters—
  Mr. Winnick: Speak to the Chair.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) give his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) the advice that he should speak to the Chair—[Interruption.] Well, what is clearly extremely unwelcome to Opposition Members is the fact that there is a large-scale racket, of which Mr. Avedila is but one example of a so-called refugee who seeks to claim that status.
  Mr. Vaz rose
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Tebbit: No, thank you.
  If Opposition Members would like me to elaborate at greater length, I could tell them the story of Mr. Williams, who was recently deported. He had been here illegally for about 18 months, during which time he had found gainful employment in the Department of Employment as an employment adjudication officer. In that role, he frequently adjudicated upon his own claims. He then went round at the weekends to collect his benefits from his accommodation addresses, many of which are quite well known. Those are matters about which my right hon. and hon. Friends should be—and, I know, are—concerned.
  Mr. Corbyn: First, I must apologise to the House for not being present in the Chamber for some of the earlier speeches. Unfortunately, however, I did hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Given that he served in Cabinet for many years, I should have thought that he would be more objective and would not simply take as his evidence two cases from the front page of the News of the World. The right hon. Gentleman

  201
  cannot even be bothered to pass on his information to the Home Office or the police, yet he extrapolates from that that there is a massive amount of fraud and a refugee and immigration racket.
  For one moment, when the right hon. Gentleman first rose to speak, and given that he will not be standing at the next election, I thought that Daniel had come to judgment and that the right hon. Gentleman was going to show some concern for those who seek asylum in this country and who have fled from oppressive regimes that were supported by the Government of which he was happily a Cabinet member for so many years. Those people have suffered torture and all sorts of indignities and have missing family members.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman chose instead to use the race card, which his party is determined to play in the run-up to the election, by extrapolating from those two cases that there is massive fraud in matters relating to refugees, thereby smearing the character of all those who seek asylum in this country, without any thought of the conditions from which they have come.
  I might have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would draw the attention of the House to his views on the two new clauses, but I do not recall him even mentioning them. Perhaps he has not read them. Indeed, he does not appear to have a copy of them with him. That seems a strangely ill-prepared way to attend such a debate—without a copy of the Bill or of the Hansard of the Standing Committee, with Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments or copies of those amendments.
  Mr. Madden: The right hon. Gentleman has the News of the World.
  Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman came with a crucial piece of information—the front page of the News of the World. We all know where he gets his information.
  These new clauses are crucial ones about the right to independent legal advice. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Chingford, who believes, apparently, in freedom of choice in all matters, would have supported the right of freedom to choose independent legal advice. But he does not do that; instead, he supports the Government's curtailment of that right. He supports the curtailment, apparently, of green-form advice, which I believe is largely motivated by the embarrassment which the Government have suffered from a number of very successful cases that have been mounted against Home Office decisions by law centres and legal aid practices throughout the country. That, I believe, is the motive behind what they are doing.
  I believe that an important part of the first of the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is the independence of interpreters. While I am not denigrating individual interpreters working for the immigration service or the Home Office, many of whom work extremely hard and do a very good job, it is essential that those seeking political asylum have an absolute guarantee that the person doing the translating is independent, is fully aware of the importance of an asylum application, is fully familiar with the cases and is somebody whose background has been inquired into to make sure that he or
  202
  she is not in a position to infiltrate the immigration service and pass information back to the regime from which the individual may be fleeing, thus putting their family at risk.
  These are extremely serious matters. Anyone seeking political asylum is taking a major step. People arriving in this country for such a purpose have to go through a long interview procedure to process their claims. While that is being done, their families at home, in Zaire, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, or wherever it may be, are in great danger if the authorities in those countries find out that an asylum application has been made in Europe or anywhere else. We need to know that all those who are taken on as interpreters by the Home Office are responsible people and will not pass back that kind of information.
  I heard what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said and I share his disappointment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that the amendments relating to the rights of the child have not been selected. When a child arrives in this country unaccompanied and seeking political asylum—in some cases, it is extremely obvious why they are seeking political asylum—it is very important that the child is treated properly, as any homeless or friendless child should be treated. We discussed these matters at some length in Committee.
  I have had experience of children arriving in this country unaccompanied from Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea. They are desperately sad cases. They have come from a war-ravaged country where their parents or friends have thought the best thing to do is to get them on a plane to some safer place. That is not an unreasonable thing to do when one considers the circumstances in which they might be living. They turn up on church doorsteps in inner London hoping that the Church will be able to help them out in some way. Then there is a rather unseemly scramble, with London social services authorities passing the children from one place to another until somebody finally accepts our responsibilities under the Children Act 1989.
  What we were looking for in Committee, and what the children's legal aid centre was looking for, was a declaration that the Government's signature to the United Nation convention on the rights of the child would be enshrined in the spirit of law in this country and that there would be independent panels that could look after the welfare of the children to ensure that their welfare was the primary consideration. That surely ought to be what we are discussing today.
  These two new clauses are important, and the Government should be able to accept them, because they would ensure a right to independent legal advice and a choice of that advice. I am not condemning the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or the people who work in it. I am saying that, as an organisation, it cannot cope with the work it has to do at the present time. No organisation could expand as quickly as the new organisation that is to be set up is apparently expected to expand to take on all this work.
  I know from first-hand experience about the excellent work that is done by a number of legal aid practices and law centres in supporting asylum applicants. It could well be that the right hon. Member for Chingford and others are so offended by the success of those organisations and the ability of those individuals that they wish to curtail the right of people to seek that independent legal advice. That

  203
  seems to me to be completely wrong. We should be supporting the right to seek independent legal advice in support of an asylum application.
  Nobody who seeks political asylum does it lightly. It is a very serious step to take, with implications for the individual, his family and the rest of his life. It is not something that people easily embark upon. I think it is time that the House took the issue seriously and guaranteed the right to independent advice.
  Mr. Ashby: I do not support the new clause, but I want to bring one aspect of it to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is the need, when an application for asylum is being considered by the special adjudicator, for a second interpreter. Denmark, which I visited to explore this very subject, uses this process. The Danes have made it quite clear—and I accept the arguments and the evidence that they have produced—that a second interpreter is absolutely necessary in the case of an application for leave.
  The application for leave is a much more beneficial ground than most other countries in Europe give; it is a much freer ground. In this respect, we are much more generous in this country. But it is really important that there should be another interview with another interpreter, and that it should be before the adjudicator in the application for leave. I see my right hon. Friend shaking his head, but I hope that he will take into account what I have said.
  Mr. Vaz: I, too, wish to apologise to the House for not having been present at the start of this debate. I was attending elsewhere to an immigration problem which was based on a misunderstanding between the Home Office and the Foreign Office. That is why I had to spend the last half an hour intervening and telephoning both Departments to try to deal with the problem.
  I want first to say something nice about the Under-Secretary of State and, on the record, to thank him for his decision in the case of Younis Patel, who was in prison in Leicester for a number of months. The case was reviewed by the Minister and Mr. Patel was allowed to stay. That is the only nice thing that I propose to say about the hon. Gentleman. That is the only case of the thousands of cases that I have raised with him to which he has said yes.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Not true.
  Mr. Vaz: Well, perhaps we can count them on the fingers of one hand.
  I want to comment briefly on the Government's proposals and to support wholeheartedly the new clauses and amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
  I believe that it is a fundamental principle that people should have access to independent legal advice. I make no mention of the crisis with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, except to say this. I have referred many immigration cases to that organisation. I believe that until very recently it operated perfectly properly. I have no great attachment to solicitors earning large sums of money dealing with immigration cases. I believe that there are many examples of people having to pay large sums to solicitors who are not experienced in immigration matters to deal with such matters. But until we have a system that allows properly resourced public
  204
  access to organisations such as UKIAS, we cannot have a system that precludes people from seeking independent legal advice from private firms of solicitors.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) may find this surprising, but I deplore the fact that some people who work in counselling services set up those services specifically to rip off people. That is utterly deplorable. If the right hon. Member has the evidence, he should place it before the Home Secretary, the police and other appropriate authorities rather than come here, in the time off that he has from his interviews on Sky, to make wild accusations about everyone involved in immigration matters.
  Mr. Winnick: Does not my hon. Friend consider it surprising that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who always wants to lecture us about the rule of law although we certainly need no lectures about it from him, comes to the House with, I think, two cases where crookedness was involved? Instead of taking the cases to the police, as he should have done and as any other hon. Member would have done, and certainly to the Home Office Minister, he found it more appropriate to come to the House and read from The News of the World to get as much publicity for himself as he could.
  5 pm
  Mr. Vaz: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Photocopies or even originals of the News of the World, if they remain from last Sunday, are no substitute for evidence being placed before the Home Secretary so that appropriate action could be taken.
  Hon. Members who are present all have a constituency interest in immigration. We know from our weekly surgeries the amount of work that immigration problems generate. In many respects we act in the shoes of solicitors and legal advisers because we have gained great experience in dealing with these matters. Rather than refer them to other people, I find myself, as I am sure my colleagues do too, making the basic applications for citizens who come to me in order to save them time, effort and money.
  Mr. Ashby: Has not my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made a powerful case for the use of fingerprints under clause 2? Was not that the main thrust of his observations? There is a very powerful case when a body like the British Refugee Council could be fooled. Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned that the true asylum seeker should be protected so that he is free to make his claim for asylum unhindered by the illegal actions of others who misuse the process?
  Mr. Vaz: We are all here to support genuine asylum seekers; that is why we tabled the new clauses. If the new clauses are accepted, we will make sure that genuine asylum seekers will be treated decently and will have access to proper independent legal advice.
  Before I was elected to the House, I worked as a solicitor in a law centre in Leicester where I dealt with many immigration cases. Because of my constituency, since election I have continued to deal with them. The anxiety, hardship and distress suffered by people as they wait for decisions from the Home Office are obvious to anyone. We feel very strongly that people should have access to solicitors who have knowledge of immigration

  205
  law, and who can protect people by explaining the difficult legislation and regulations dealing with immigration policy.
  Over the past 12 years immigration policy developed by the Government has become more restrictive and hurts many people. When the Government introduce complicated legislation, it is only right that people should have access to those with basic information about it. UKIAS or another body should be developed on a national basis, with branches in all parts of the country. Certainly I should like to see a branch in Leicester. I do not see why my constituents should have to go to Birmingham or elsewhere to get effective legal advice. If we had such a network, we would be able to withdraw the support which we currently give to private practitioners, but the Minister knows that we cannot do so at this stage because there is no body of effective legal advice and opinion to benefit people.
  I make no secret of the fact that we should have a public legal system in Britain, funded by central Government through law centres. Under that system, which we will begin to have under the Labour Government, we would not have to worry about dispensing public funds to private solicitors.
  As to interpreters, I do not speak every language of the Indian sub-continent. I need interpreters in my surgery who can speak Punjabi, Urdu and Gujarati, otherwise I cannot understand fully what my constituents are saying when they have complicated immigration problems. It is only right that we should put forward modest proposals to ensure that there is access to interpreters. I understand that even the The People has started to produce certain pages in Urdu. If that newspaper recognises the importance of doing so, Parliament should recognise its importance and it should be enshrined in the legislation.
  I hope that the Minister will realise that we have made sensible suggestions. They would ease his load by giving people access to proper and effective legal advice. If they had access to interpreters, it would enable his Department speedily to deal with immigration cases.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I should like to intervene only for a moment because I have an important constituency interest in that Gatwick, a major international airport, is within my constituency.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about the anguish and anxiety caused to people by immigration problems. Inevitably it takes a great deal of time to go into these cases. It is right that they should he dealt with in a humane and honourable manner. In my view, the steps that the Government have taken, and are proposing to take, will in no way diminish the handling of the cases; indeed, I hope that they will speed it up and make it more effective and efficient.
  May I pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), from whom I have always had the greatest courtesy and the most enormous amount of help in dealing with constituency cases. He takes great trouble over a seemingly endless stream of difficulties. I am grateful to him. I do not recognise in what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said about my hon. Friend any vestige of truth. My hon. Friend has been a staunch ally in trying to resolve difficulties as they have arisen for my constituents.
  206
  I should like also to pay tribute to the work of UKIAS at Gatwick. I have absolutely no doubt about its independence. I understand that the statistics show that UKIAS ranks ahead of other people in its success rate at tribunals—not that that is necessarily a good or bad indication, but it is fact. The House need have no anxiety about the independence of UKIAS. I understand the concern that people may feel about the proposed change, but I am content that it should go thus.
  As to the unfair and entirely predictable venom that was poured on the head of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) a moment ago, it is increasingly impossible to have a sensible talk about sensitive matters without such abuse. My right hon. Friend was correct and was entitled to raise the case that he did in the House just now. We all saw it in the newspaper and there is great public concern. Many constituents write to me regularly, expressing themselves strongly and loudly of the opinion, or in some cases the fact, that there has been serious abuse of the immigration laws. We all know that it goes on.
  All of us who have immigrant populations in our constituencies have become more adept at identifying dodgy lobbying. Over the last nine years, as I have dealt more and more with these matters, I have gained more experience. My right hon. Friend was right to air on the Floor of the House a matter which, however specific—no doubt it is being looked into by the authorities and by the police—
  Mr. Vaz: Is it?
  Mr. Soames: I am sure that it is.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It enables me to say that I was accused of racism by Labour Members although I had not mentioned the race of the individuals in the two cases to which I referred.
  Mr. Vaz: What is it?
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman a little more about the two individuals, if I may, in a brief intervention. One gentleman has fled the country of his own volition, using yet another identity. The other gentleman to whom I referred, Mr. Williams, was deported some little while ago, it being cheaper to deport him than prosecute him for the gross fraud that he has perpetrated against the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend makes his own point.
  These matters, however disagreeable they may be to raise in an individual context, are discussed in the pubs in my constituency, as they are discussed and debated at the Eton College debating society or the Liverpool polytechnic. Why should they not be aired on the Floor of the House? My right hon. Friend is right to raise in front of the—
  Mr. Vaz: We are merely suggesting that if the right hon. Member for Chingford has information he must place it before the appropriate authorities. That is what he should do.
  Mr. Soames: As I have said, I have no doubt that, given the scale of the fraud, the matter is being investigated vigorously. I have no shadow of a doubt about that. I am

  207
  aware of cases in my constituency—of course they are rare—where the investigating authorities have gone into matters extremely carefully and at great length while being most careful to ensure that there is no publicity that would be likely to lead to prejudice one way or the other. The only point that I seek to make—
  Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
  I wish only to make the point that I think it wrong that Opposition Members should seek to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, who has fairly raised a matter that carries with it considerable concern in all strata of society. It is right that it should be raised on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Boateng: The objection is not that such matters are raised but to the poisonous or venomous manner in which it is done.
  Mr. Soames: That is precisely the point that I am trying to make.
  I have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford being poisonous or venomous, but neither poison nor venom did I detect when he raised a fair, sensible and extremely important matter that needs to be debated frankly and fully on the Floor of the House without the sort of ignorant, absurd and childish platitudes that we have so recently heard.
  I have had regular and extensive contact and dealings with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service as an ordinary Member who has regularly to deal with immigration matters. I am confident that when I recommend a constituent to see UKIAS he or she will be dealt with in an entirely independent and completely honourable and decent manner. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Minister in that respect.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that asylum seekers should be guaranteed good legal advice and representation. I have considerable sympathy for what the two new clauses seek to do. Before any fluttering expectations begin to arise in the minds or breasts—I do not mind which it is—of Opposition Members, I should say that I cannot advise the House to write the two clauses into the Bill, because they deal, for example, with administrative matters such as a once-off requirement for a report to be made to Parliament—new clause 2—and the keeping of a custody record—new clause 10—that should not be set down in primary legislation. They do so—this comment applies especially to new clause 10—in language that is more absolute then justified or practical. For example, new clause 10 provides an asylum seeker with the entitlement
  "to consult a solicitor or advisor of his choice privately at any time."
  That would be unexceptionable if "at any time" were changed to "any reasonable time". The right of the asylum seeker to be informed
  "in the language of his choice"
  is too sweeping, though I accept the general direction of that which is sought. There are some languages that require interpreters to which we do not have ready access,
  208
  though we always make every effort to ensure that we find an interpreter who speaks the applicant's language or at least one in which he or she is comfortable.
  I have given some of the prosaic reasons why the new clauses should not become part of the Bill—
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way on the provision of interpreters?
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall not give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about that. I shall take up the matter more fully later in my remarks.
  Mr. John Frase: The Minister has referred to what he described as administrative matters that he thinks are not amenable to legislation. He has said that he is in agreement, but with some reservations, about the keeping of custody records and access to a solicitor of the applicant's choice. Will he give an undertaking that he will make administrative arrangements that will equally well put into effect the entitlements that we seek in new clause 10?
  Mr. Lloyd: I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking—it is of the sort that I gave him in Committee—that I believe that many things should be done with the extra resources that we shall have, and in the context of administrative matters the care of records is relevant. We shall be able to undertake that task more fully and in a better manner in future. It is a matter of priorities. I undertake to examine all these matters to see what we might do. I cannot say that in an administrative context we shall take up every item that appears in the new clauses, at least not in the way that is implied. I am not against the general tenor of that which is sought.
  I have set out some of the reasons why the new clauses should not become part of the Bill and now I shall say something about general intention. It is right that, for example, the House should be well informed of the arrangements for advice and representation. It is open to the House to ask for reports, and it can pose questions at any time. I believe that I am being asked a question on my meeting yesterday with the UKIAS executive council, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members have tabled questions. It is my intention to keep hon. Members informed of the temporary arrangements that will be made for the UKIAS refugee unit. This will be done by the best and most helpful means that are available to us, so that the House is kept informed at each stage. I shall deal with that matter more fully in my later remarks.
  I look to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when I say that I am not clear about the precise intention that lies behind the phrase in new clause 2, which refers to
  "satisfactory access to advice and representation"—
  this is for applicants—
  "from advisers and representatives of their choice".
  Of course applicants may continue to have advice and representation of their choice; we place no limit on either. The present arrangements for representations are as they were under the Labour Government, which means that publicly funded representation, as opposed to advice, is available only from the UKIAS. Does new clause 2 envisage that legal aid will be extended to representation before the special appellate system takes effect? That would be a fundamental change from the practice of Labour Governments of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member.
  Mr. Hattersley: I do not know why the Minister is making such heavy weather of this matter. I suspect that he is doing so because he believed what the Home Secretary said when he intervened. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on 2 July included the following two sentences:
  "At present advice and assistance but not representation are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigrant appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service."— [Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 166-67.]
  That can mean only that UKIAS was to be made the exclusive provider of legal advice. We are opposed to that. We wish to return to the scheme which was operated and was intended to operate until the Home Secretary made his statement on 2 July.
  Mr. Lloyd: The purpose of my question was to extract from the right hon. Gentleman what he thought was meant not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department but the new clause. When I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he replied in such confusion that I thought it best to give him time to reflect, and to ask my question again later. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to abandon the arrangement with which Labour was content when it was last in power? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can answer that now. Is he saying that free representation—as opposed to advice—paid for out of public funds would continue to be a monopoly of UKIAS or some other similar organisation?
  Alternatively, is the right hon. Gentleman implying—as I thought that he was in some of his remarks—that legal aid would be generally available to those appearing before adjudicators or tribunals, and that they could secure representation from any part of the legal profession?
  Mr. Hattersley: I was not arguing—and never have argued—for the hypothesis that the Minister irrelevantly introduces. I want to see the status quo—the preservation of the system that the Home Secretary said on 2 July that he intended to abandon. I understood from the Home Secretary's intervention that the total abandonment of the green form scheme was never in the Home Secretary's mind. There is confusion throughout the House about the Under-Secretary's intentions. Does he or does he not propose to abandon the green form scheme totally and completely?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am trying to tease from the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks is the meaning of the new clause that he invites the House to adopt. I understand that it would leave the situation exactly as it is now, with green form advice available from a legal practitioner or free from UKIAS—but with representation confined only to UKIAS or any successor body.
  As to the Government's position on the green form scheme, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that instead of an arrangement unique to the immigration appellate system, whereby public funds finance two sources of free advice—UKIAS and green form—they were considering concentrating the provision of free advice through UKIAS, so that only that organisation would be publicly funded to give advice.
  My noble and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend made it clear that the green form scheme would not be
  210
  withdrawn until a full, free, prompt, and convenient form of professional advice was available to every asylum seeker. They made it clear also, as they had to do because of the rules by which we work, that no such change could be put into effect without formal consultation and the consent of both Houses. Parliament will decide. The right hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to speak his mind and to record his vote if and when my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor brings forward considered proposals on the green form scheme. Until then, green form professional advice will continue to be available.
  Mr. Hattersley: It would be churlish of me not to say how much I welcome that statement, and how much I rejoice in the fact that to add to the four climbdowns that I announced at 4 o'clock, there is a fifth—the abandonment of the proposal announced by the Home Secretary in column 167 of Hansard on 2 July.
  Mr. Lloyd: That proposal is still under serious consideration. Laughter.] We would not make such a large change without formal consultation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook may laugh. That is how he may see himself operating as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, but it is not how this Government's Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor operate. As to the climbdowns to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, they merely reflect the Government's success in putting in writing—and I agree that this was needed in some cases—the Government's intentions, using words that even the right hon. Gentleman could understand.
  The timing of yesterday's meeting with UKIAS was not occasioned by either the imminent general election, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), or today's Report stage of the Bill. Because UKIAS's general council will meet tomorrow, I thought that it would be fairer to speak to its executive in advance so that it could report back, rather than have to wait until after tomorrow's general council meeting.
  As the House knows—because I have said this before—whatever may be the difficulties, to use the word chosen by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), confronting UKIAS's general council and executive, its full-time staff give excellent and professional advice and representation. However, I have long thought that UKIAS's constitution does not sufficiently bring in the various bodies and professional groups concerned with asylum, effectively rule out conflicting pecuniary interests, or satisfactorily delegate its day-to-day running to its very good, professional, full-time management in the way that a well-run organisation in receipt of public funds ought to do.
  For more than a year my officials, and latterly myself, and most particularly the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—whose senior representative attended yesterday's meeting and shares my concerns and objectives—urged on UKIAS the need to introduce constitutional changes to remove the shortcomings that I described and to meet many of the outside criticisms to which UKIAS is subjected.
  It is plain that, although there was, and is, wide acceptance of the need for reform within UKIAS, it was too slow in producing results. As I said, we have been talking to UKIAS about the need for reform for more than

  211
  a year. I therefore told the organisations's executive that as the refugee section will need to expand to meet the requirements of the new appellate procedure and the increase in asylum applications, which will press upon UKIAS with the new appeal provisions that the Bill introduces, I did not believe it right to permit UKIAS to have large additional funds without the desired constitutional changes being in place.
  Accordingly, I gave UKIAS notice that its refugee section would be temporarily detached, to enable its expansion for the time being under the guidance of an independent body to be established in consultation with the UNHCR. I also gave UKIAS three months to introduce the necessary constitutional changes or face the withdrawal of the rest of its grant. I hope that will not be necessary, and that UKIAS will implement the changes needed in a manner that it will be possible to reunite it with its refugee unit. However, the Government will want to be sure that the reformed organisation has the confidence of not only the Home Office but the UNHCR and the various respected bodies active in asylum and general immigration.
  I am not acting to rescue a substandard, representational service on which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to place too much reliance earlier this year. I am most emphatically not doing that. I am certainly not acting—as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) suggests—to make the refugee unit more politically amenable. Even if we were of that mind, the constitutional changes for which we are calling would make that much more difficult.
  I should be interested to know whether Labour Members quarrel with any of the three constitutional principles that I indicated. Certainly the UNHCR believes that they are necessary—particularly for an organisation that will inevitably play a much enhanced role as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Fraser: The constitutional principle that we uphold—a principle enshrined in many declarations of human rights—is that people in difficulty should be given the advice of their choice.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman giggled when I asked him about representation earlier. Advice and representation will, of course, go together: when a representative appears before an adjudicator or a tribunal, he will make the case in the way that he and his client have agreed is the most sensible. The distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes between advice and representation is not as real as he suggests. Certainly it is not a distinction of principle; it emanates from the practice of the past 24 years. It is because that practice has continued for so long that the very conservative party—conservative with a small "c"—that constitutes the official Opposition is happy with it, and will not question it.
  Mr. Boateng: Surely the Minister recognises that at the heart of the green form system is precisely that distinction between advice and representation. The green form system does not cover representation; it is linked specifically with the issue of advice, which is recognised as being entirely
  212
  distinct and separate from the issue of representation. To confuse the two, as the Minister is doing, is to mislead the House, and to do his own case no service at all.
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course representation and advice are different, but they are not as easily separated as the hon. Gentleman implies. I am not speaking to a Bill that would make such changes; I am speaking to a Bill which leaves matters as they are now. I am, however, making an administrative change in the way in which grant is paid to the refugee section, to protect it. I am seeking to safeguard the high quality of UKIAS's representation—especially in regard to asylum applicants—and to enable the refugee section to expand speedily and efficiently. I want it to be able to meet the demands of additional representation that the Bill will confer on it, with the confidence of those who work in the field.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has described the hived-off refugee section as desirably independent. How does he propose to ensure that it is so independent of the Government that it is a reliable body in the eyes of those who seek advice?
  Mr. Lloyd: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what I hope will prove to be temporary arrangements. We are consulting the UNHCR closely, and we shall rely heavily on its advice and recommendations: indeed, the UNHCR contributes funds to the refugee unit. It wanted the changes, and we shall not reach conclusions with which it is not happy. I hope that we shall be able to introduce a temporary arrangement that will include the contribution of a range of representatives or individuals who are knowledgeable about the whole system of asylum and immigration, and who will inspire confidence. I thought it right, however, to tell the executive of UKIAS what the Government intended before the UNHCR approached individuals and sensible discussion began.
  A number of points have been raised this evening. One concerned the letter that I sent to the chairman of UKIAS. I should be happy for it to be placed in the Library, although I should like to ask the chairman whether he has any objection. I do not see why he should—it merely confirms a meeting—but I feel that I owe him that small courtesy. I have no reason to believe that his agreement will not be forthcoming.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned timing. I hope that I have made it clear that the Bill does not owe itself to an approaching general election. The changes that I require UKIAS to make in its constitution have nothing to do with that; what they have to do with is the imminence of the large amount of extra money that is to be devoted to the expansion of the refugee unit.
  The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to a report in The Independent about an Ethiopian boy. I have only just seen that report, and I do not know the background, so I shall make only two observations. It appears that the boy's mother feared that he would be conscripted into the Ethiopian army, so the report obviously dates from some time ago. It is said that the boy was found wandering outside the airport. Certainly he did not say when he arrived that he was seeking asylum; if he was entering the country legitimately—even if he did not mention asylum—he would have needed a visa, as well as an Ethiopian exit visa. That requirement certainly operated then, and I believe that it still does.

  213
  I shall need to examine the case further, but it appears to be one of those cases in which a child is brought in by someone, and directed to introduce himself to some
  organisation. The rule clearly states—and I believe that our immigration officers implement it—that if an unaccompanied child seeks asylum at an airport, that child must be put in touch with the appropriate local authority social services department with a view to his being taken into care.
  Mr. Madden: Is the Minister saying that the green form system will continue indefinitely, and that a temporarily detached refugee section will be established? I may not be the only hon. Member who is confused about this. Are we to assume that that body alone will be able to provide representation for political asylum seekers?
  As each hour passes, it becomes clearer that a statement should have been made before the Bill reached this stage. I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would consider accepting a motion for the adjournment of the Report stage to enable the Government to get their act together. They need time to make all the temporary arrangements, engage in all the necessary consultations and reach all the decisions that so vitally affect men and women who seek political asylum because they are fleeing violence and persecution. Surely this is a very shabby way in which to respond to the faith that those people have placed in us.
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully, he would know the answers to his questions. I believe, however, that my response to a later question will clarify the matter further.
  As I have said, representation will continue to be available, at public expense, and will be available only through UKIAS or through the detached refugee unit. I have made it crystal clear that the green form system will continue as it is, if and until the Lord Chancellor presents proposals that will be incorporated in a formal consultation document. If, after that, he decides to make a change to the green form system, that change must come before both Houses of Parliament: the system cannot be withdrawn without the approval of Parliament as a whole.
  Mr. Vaz: How long with the process take?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is not a matter for me. I can only say that it is a considerable way off, because of the clear undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor that absolutely no change would be made until a comprehensive national system of good professional advice was available promptly to all asylum seekers.
  That must be some way off. The circumstances in which such a proposition could be put into effect are not with us yet. I realise that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to chat about this matter rather than about the provisions of the Bill. However, it is not in the Bill and it is not proposed to be included in the Bill. It would have to come before the House in another measure.
  Mr. Soames: Before the intervention by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) my hon. Friend referred to the care that local authorities provide for children who arrive here in this distressing situation. May I ask him to listen carefully to the representations of the West Sussex county council? Gatwick airport is situated
  214
  within its boundaries. The county council experiences great difficulty over the care of these children, at enormous additional expense, for which it is not recompensed. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the recommendations that the county council has already made?
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall always consider carefully what those who are involved have to say, but my hon. Friend ought to direct any representations that he wishes to make on behalf of his county council to the Department of Health, which is the sponsoring body in this case. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is very much concerned about this subject.
  Mr. Corbyn: May I remind the Minister that about two years ago a delegation consisting of London local authorities and some London Members of Parliament went to the Department of Health to raise the very same point that the hon. Member for Crawley
  (Mr. Soames) has just raised about the costs involved, which they were willingly bearing, in looking after displaced children. However, at the end of it all we got nothing from the Department of Health in terms of additional vital resources that are absolutely necessary if these children are to be cared for properly.
  Mr. LloydAs I have already said, these are matter for Department of Health, not for me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) asked about the availability of advice, irrespective of age, but he is particularly concerned about children, as he demonstrated in Committee. I said to him in Committee that the refugee unit is the right group of people to give legal advice. I have put that matter to the unit and it is considering what might be done in terms of providing advice and help that is especially suitable for children, as well as representation on legal matters and their claim for asylum.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to these difficulties. As I said earlier, he is a distinguished former chairman of UKIAS. I believe that he was also a full-time officer of UKIAS, so he knows very well what good work it does. I hope that UKIAS will be able to continue to give advice on refugee, immigration and representational matters after the constitutional changes have been made, which I hope will remove the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman knows exist.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred to a case that he had read about in the newspapers. If I have identified it correctly, it is a case of which we were already well aware and which we were investigating before that report appeared in the newspapers. As my right hon. Friend made his point in this debate, it is not unreasonable that I should briefly reply to it. It has been too easy to defraud the Department of Social Security. That is one of the reasons why we are taking fingerprint powers in the Bill.
  We have also made it clear to the DSS—to which it has happily agreed—that the only piece of paper that will justify the Department making social security payments to an asylum seeker is the piece of paper issued by the Home Office with the individual's photograph upon it, as well as a special number. Since that system was introduced last year, about 2,250 asylum seekers—who had not, either through the post or in person, presented documents to us that established their identity—been asked to come in so that their identity could be established. Of those 2,250

  215
  people, only 20 per cent. have materialised. That is a measure of the problem that we have to tackle. I do not say that the other 80 per cent. have defrauded anybody, but the integrity of our system needs to be ensured by the provisions contained in the Bill.
  I promised the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that I would return to the point that he raised about interpreters. It is very important that they should be capable interpreters and that they should interpret reliably both ways. We take steps to ensure that immigration service interpreters interpret reliably. Representation is looked after by the refugee unit which has its own interpreters; they are not provided by the Home Office. In court, the refugee unit must provide its own interpreters. It may, however, use the same interpreters as the Home Office uses. There is no copyright on interpreters. Each body is responsible, however, for providing its own interpreters.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: I raised this important point because I was concerned about the security of those who provide the translation. My point was that somebody who is privy to the interview, as the translator obviously is, must be absolutely reliable. Unless one is completely certain about those people and the quality of their translation, they could pass information back to an oppressive regime that might be extremely dangerous for the family of the asylum seeker.
  Mr. Lloyd: We are very much aware of that concern. We take all the steps that we can to ensure that all our staff, including the interpreters, are secure and keep confidential information that could be extremely damaging if it were released.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby) wanted a second interpreter to be provided. I hope, having listened to what he said, that he realises that in almost all cases there will be a second interpreter—certainly it will not be a Home Office interpreter—when the refugee unit represents an individual. That interpreter will have to talk to this individual, look at the papers produced and decide whether the case is the same as that which was presented by the other interpreter.
  I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for his limited personal endorsement. I was interested in what he said about developing UKIAS and his qualified approval of the withdrawal of the green form. Again let me say that the Government have not yet made that decision. All that we are doing is giving serious consideration to an outline proposal.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) for his kind remarks about the UKIAS staff who work at Gatwick. Again I repeat that the advice that the UKIAS field staff give is excellent. The constitutional changes that we expect to make to the organisation are designed to preserve that excellence.
  Mr. Fraser: We have listened to criticism of UKIAS, and various proposals and analyses have been put before us. It is a pity and somewhat surprising that, when the Home Secretary made a statement about the ending of the green form advice scheme in July and that when he spoke to the House on Second Reading in October—when he regaled the House with stories about bogus applications, some of which put certain applicants for political asylum
  216
  in a bad light—he did not use some of his time to tell the House about his concerns and criticisms and in particular about his proposals for the reorganisation of UKIAS. That has been forced out only by this debate that the Opposition have brought about on Report.
  It is proper for me to begin by declaring an interest as a partner in a firm of solicitors that deals with some political asylum cases, and a member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Dealing with immigration and political asylum cases is not seen as highly remunerative within the legal profession. It is done by many people as a duty, rather than something that will bring in a great deal of money. There is some misunderstanding—it has not been made clear by the Under-Secretary—that there is a distinction between giving advice and advocacy on appeals. I use the word "advocacy" because it makes the distinction clearer.
  There are thousands of cases involving ordinary immigration matters and political asylum applications where advice and assistance is given in presenting the case to the Home Office. It may be a case to stay here as a husband or a political refugee; or, akin to a political refugee, it may be a case involving exceptional leave to remain. Currently, most such cases are dealt with by solicitors and other advice agencies, some of them using the green form scheme.
  Thus, it will not be just solicitors who are deprived of the assistance of the green form scheme. About 60 law centres across the country dealing with such work will he deprived of that assistance, as will the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which will be deprived of that form of Government support for advice and preparation of political asylum applications, and a number of other advice agencies throughout the country, which will be deprived of the assistance of the scheme in processing claims.
  Most claims are admitted and approved by the Home Office and do not go to appeal or involve advocacy. It must be made clear that what is being proposed by the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary is the abolition of green form advice for between 15,000 and 20,000 cases a year, most of which will never involve advocacy or an approach to UKIAS under the present arrangements, and no appeal or representation at that level. The House must be clear about the scale of the abolition of advice and representations made to the Home Office on political asylum cases. The scale of that in no way matches the scale of the appeals that take place.
  It is important to understand the wish and need of people claiming political asylum to have a choice of representation and not to be directed towards an organisation which, no matter how good, is seen as being a state monopoly—and in the light of the letter of 7 October, a state monopoly that is amenable to the Government's bullying.
  I was asked for my advice on a case this week involving somebody who feared political persecution because they were a Christian. The person was part of a Christian band in a country that is under a dictatorship. The band engaged in acts of evangelism where people would sing and pray against killing, war and violence. That group of people was arrested by a band of soldiers because it was thought that the opposition to killing represented opposition to the country's presidency. A number of them

  217
  were taken to barracks and beaten. One of them was able to escape and that person—I shall not identify the sex—came to the United Kingdom.
  For four years, that person has been in the United Kingdom without making a political asylum application. For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), that person has never claimed income support. In fact, that person probably does a part-time, poorly paid job cleaning, perhaps in one of British Telecom's offices. That person has made no claim against the state and there is no question of fraud, duplication or anything of that nature.
  That person's concern is not for himself or herself but for their child. The concern is whether the child will be able to survive if the parent is returned to a country under dictatorial rule and is killed or imprisoned. That person has been in so much doubt about whether to make an application that it has taken four years to pluck up courage even to take advice.
  I am not criticising UKIAS, but it is important that, in genuine applications of that nature, people should have a choice. They should be able to go somewhere where they believe that their confidence will be respected, which may have been recommended by someone else. That is partly what this is about. In principle, the Under-Secretary agreed that that was incontestable.
  New clause 10 ensures that any applicant for political asylum who is in detention should have access to advice from a solicitor or adviser of their choice. The clause fills that out, because it will not work unless the applicant is informed of that right and unless it is underpinned with custody records—that is the experience of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and our ordinary criminal procedures. It does not work unless the interview between the adviser and the person claiming political asylum is conducted in a language that is understood by the applicant. I understand that one cannot provide interpreters for every language, but it is important to choose a language in which the applicant can be understood. I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that, even if those provisions are not written into law, they are at least written into our procedures.
  New clause 2 seeks to preserve the green form legal advice scheme. It follows that the agreed and incontestable objectives of new clause 10 are impossible to fulfil in practice without the provision of green form advice. New clause 2 is simply a device to get a debate on this subject on to the Order Paper because the Bill is not directly about advice, although it was presented in the context of ending green form advice.
  Green form advice costs about£2.85 million a year, and an average of£181 per case. That is not a great deal of money, and it is not possible to charge more than about £50 per case without going to the Legal Aid Board and justifying the additional expenditure. So there are already tight public expenditure controls, and the rate of remuneration is well below that paid to anybody acting in a commercial capacity. There is no possibility of abuse, and the amount of money involved is not high.
  Legal advice and assistance underpin the reality of the rights given to applicants for political asylum under the international convention. I say to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that it is important that
  218
  vulnerable people, not just adults but children and elderly parents who may have no understanding of the English language or culture, have that underpinning. It is provided now, usually by experts at a low rate of remuneration and a pretty modest overall cost.
  The proposal to abolish the green form scheme is mean because it will not save a great deal of money. Even worse, it is vindictive because it is bound to weaken in some way the rights given under the international convention. It begs the question whether the real purpose of the Home Secretary's proposal was not simply a rearrangement of the source of advice, but a way of ensuring that the number of those applying for political asylum is reduced. It is contrary to the spirit of the international convention and to conventions on human rights.
  If the scheme is abolished it will rob political asylum applicants of nationwide coverage. In Committee, the Under-Secretary told us that the UKIAS expanded scheme would involve an increase in the number of officers working for the organisation from 23 to 87. That is an extra 64 officers, compared with about 700 specialist firms coupled with advice centres. There is no equation between perhaps 700 and 1,000 observers giving nationwide 24-hour expert coverage and an extra 64 officers working for UKIAS, who are supposed to fulfil the same task.
  6 pm
  We know that, under the Bill, for the first time, applicants for political asylum who arrive at ports will have rights of appeal—we do not contest that—and those appeals will be dealt with by UKIAS. That is the existing system, but people will have their work cut out in dealing with the appeal aspect, let alone the preparation of the applications, which very often have to be carried out at the ports at short notice and often at unsocial hours and, most importantly, done by people who know what they are talking about and who have some expertise. Abolition of the green form scheme will not only undermine people's rights but destroy the geographic coverage.
  Abolition will also unlock the link which was always intended by both Governments between giving advice and applying for legal aid to go to the courts where necessary. What often happens at the moment is that, when someone arrives at a port, an early decision is made to refuse an application for political asylum, and if anything is to be done—whether under the old or the new system—there is a necessity for a judicial review. Abolition will break the link between the lawyer giving advice in the first place and processing the matter within a short time limit to take the matter to a judicial review and the divisional courts. It will abolish what is, as near as damn it, a 24-hour service.
  This proposal does not have a single friend. I do not think that one hon. Member has been able to produce a letter, a representation or a delegation from anyone in the United Kingdom in favour of the proposal. Only two people, apart from the Under-Secretary, are in favour of it. One is the Lord Chancellor, represented in the House by the Attorney-General, and the other is the Home Secretary.
  I should have thought that the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary were the last people in the world to want to abolish legal advice and assistance. After all, the House was told yesterday that the Attorney-General had spent—I think—£2.1 million on one case. He spent £2.1 million-worth of legal advice and assistance in order to pursue the "Spycatcher" case. That is almost exactly the

  219
  same as what is being spent on the green form system which the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor propose to destroy. In view of the Attorney-General's scale of expenditure, he should not be against the scheme.
  The other person who should not be against publicly paid legal representation is the Home Secretary, who is not doing too badly for legal advice. The costs of his going to the divisional court will be paid not by him but by a legal aid scheme provided by the Government. His costs in going to the Court of Appeal and of having the best Queen's counsel were paid out of the public purse. When he goes to the House of Lords on his contempt rap, he will receive legal aid. Indeed, the sum involved would keep a very large proportion of the green form scheme in being for a long time.
  The proposals are disreputable and they have become more disreputable the more they have been examined. They are disreputable because they deny choice, because the cost at the moment is relatively small, because they involve threats to UKIAS and because they attack and undermine those who are most vulnerable. I hope that the House will uphold our international obligations and our tradition of choice of representation by supporting the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 301.

  Division No. 45]

  [6.04 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Anderson, Donald

  Cryer, Bob

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barron, Kevin

  Eadie, Alexander

  Battle, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Enright, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bellotti, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Carr, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cartwright, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  220

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  O'Hara, Edward

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Geraint

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Robertson, George

  Ingram, Adam

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Janner, Greville

  Rogers, Allan

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rooney, Terence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lambie, David

  Short, Clare

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAllion, John

  Stephen, Nicol

  McCartney, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McLeish, Henry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Vaz, Keith

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wallace, James

  Marek, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martlew, Eric

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michael, Alun

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wilson, Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Winnick, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Worthington, Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  O'Brien, William

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amos, Alan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Benyon, W.

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  221

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Ground, Patrick

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Budgen, Nicholas

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

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hill, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hind, Kenneth

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irvine, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Cran, James

  Janman, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, James

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Farr, Sir John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Maples, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  222

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sims, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Speed, Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Speller, Tony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mudd, David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)

  Norris, Steve

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thorne, Neil

  Page, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Paice, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trippier, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walden, George

  Price, Sir David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rost, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Yeo, Tim

  Shelton, Sir William

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
  '. No power conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State shall be exercised in circumstances where the exercise of the power would be in breach of an international treaty or obligation to which the United Kingdom is a party.'.—[Mr. Darling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Interpretation—
  '( ).—(1) In the interpretation or exercise of any provision or power in this Act regard shall be had to the Convention, the Handbook on Procedures on Criteria for Determining Refugee Status as published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from time to time and the European Convention on Human Rights which carne into force on 3rd September 1953.
  (2) Where any provision of this Act appears to be inconsistent with the matters set out in subsection (1) above, the Conventions and Handbook shall prevail.'.
  Government amendment No. 25.
  Mr. Darling: New clauses 3 and 6 and Government amendment No. 25 have a similar effect. In Committee, we were anxious that, when it came to interpretation, regard should be taken of the United Nations convention on refugees and, in particular, the United Nations handbook on refugees which is published for the guidance of those who interpret that convention. There was much debate on that subject and the Minister undertook to reflect on the issue and decide whether the Bill could be suitably amended, and I am glad that he has.
  Government amendment No. 25 states that
  "nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention."
  I am pleased that the Government tabled the amendment, which means that the legislation will be just ciable so that matters relating to asylum or, more importantly, interpretation and the provision of immigration rules—whether procedural or substantive—would allow an aggrieved applicant the opportunity to argue his case before a court. As we said in Committee, it is certainly our view—and I think that it is the view of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—that a declaratory statement of this sort, as well as being novel in our legislation, would be welcome. I am grateful to the Minister for having made the concession.
  I do not want to press new clause 3 or new clause 6 to a Division, or to detain the House on this group of amendments. It might be more useful to discuss some of the matters relating to the interpretation of the rules, and we shall have an opportunity to do that in the debate on the next group of amendments.
  Mr. Maclennan: I should like to thank the Minister for the Government amendment. It is a useful attempt to deal with a point that I raised in Committee—the compatibility of the immigration rules with our international obligations, particularly those under the international convention. However, I am not sure that the drafting of the amendment is entirely felicitous. The new provision could be understood as indicating to a court that the intention was that the immigration rules should conform with the provisions of the convention. I am afraid, however, that a slightly different interpretation might be placed upon the language: that the declaratory intention has not necessarily been given effect and that the rules themselves will take precedence over the statutory provisions. I hope that I am wrong. It may be that if the rules were independently adjudged to be contrary to the convention the Government's proposed provision would be binding and that the rule would be invalidated. No doubt the Minister will want to deal with the point.
  Parliament cannot bind its successors, but in this respect rules that do not have the full force of law as
  224
  prescribed by Parliament may be somewhat different. In other words, I am not sure whether, if there were a conflict between the convention and the rules as amended, the rules would prevail or whether this provision would ensure that they did not.
  Mr. Ivan LawrenceI welcome amendment No. 25 very much because it makes clear beyond doubt that there is no basis of any kind for the various scurrilous newspaper articles suggesting that genuine refugees might be sent back, in breach of United Nations convention obligations. I should like to quote from an article by Caroline Moorhead in The Independent of 18 November. It set off a flood of letters attacking the Government for their inhumanity. The letters, some of which have reached me, are completely without foundation, as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate. Caroline Moorhead, in her article, says:
  "At least 2,000 victims of torture who have managed to get temporary permission to remain in Britain are faced with deportation—and possible further torture—if the Asylum Bill becomes law."
  The article goes on to say that if the Bill is passed those who have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom
  "can, in theory, be picked up, detained … and deported."
  The writer of the article appears to rely heavily on advice given by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which says that the Bill poses grave dangers. The article goes on:
  "Precisely what form it will take is not clear, since no attempt has been made to spell out the Bill's consequences. But inherent in its proposals is the possibility that people who fled their country after persistent brutality may again find themselves facing it."
  Later the article says:
  "Since it is planned to make the legislation retrospective, and most of the foundation's clients are on Temporary Admission or Exceptional Leave to Remain, there is hardly a person on its books not at risk of deportation."
  Mr. Darling: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution. He looks as though he has just returned from a busy day in court. Does he accept that the article from which he has quoted was written before the Government tabled their amendments? Those amendments meet some of the points that the article makes. However, the author of the article cannot be faulted for having raised these concerns. None of the matters had been discussed in Committee, let alone on Report.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, the letters to which I have referred are still circulating. It appears that the message that went out during the Committee stage has not reached the people who seem to be very concerned about the matter. That being the case, it is all the more important that we take this opportunity to send the message loud and clear to everyone. Everybody has the highest regard for the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which does exceptional work. I am sure that all its intentions are good, but it does not seem to be above a little bit of scurrility.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity—undoubtedly the umpteenth, as has been indicated—to make several points. First, he should make it clear that the immigration authorities give the most scrupulous

  225
  attention to the opinion of the foundation that any person is a genuine refugee and would refuse to accept its advice only if there were cogent evidence to the contrary.
  When I raised this matter with the Department early in December I was given an example of the kind of case in which the advice of the medical foundation was not taken. The House may be interested in that example. It concerns a Zairean asylum seeker who claimed to have been severely beaten while in detention. The foundation's report concluded that scars on his body were entirely consistent with that claim. The Home Office commissioned independent medical advisers, who said that there was clear evidence that the applicant had been physically maltreated but that there was no particular evidence that the maltreatment had occurred recently in Zaire. There was some ambiguity about the medical evidence.
  The immigration authorities, however, considered the story implausible for other reasons. In the luggage of the asylum seeker, who claimed that he had been tortured by the Zairean authorities, were five blank Zairean birth certificates bearing official signatures and an incomplete and unsigned Zairean passport in a name other than his. That seemed to suggest skulduggery rather than that the person was a genuine asylum seeker. Notwithstanding that, the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain. The Department made it clear to me, however—and this was probably good sense—that he was given exceptional leave not solely on the basis of the medical evidence.
  6.30 pm
  Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that, where there is evidence of recent torture, a person will be treated as a genuine asylum seeker? If scars are so old that they cannot have been caused recently by the regime against which a person is complaining, or if there are other reasons to doubt whether the scars were caused by torture, as opposed to a fight or personal dispute, it may be another matter: the person may not be in genuine fear of persecution. I do not think that we should rule out the reasonable consideration of all the circumstances.
  Thirdly, will my hon. Friend confirm that no refugee who has been given leave to stay in the United Kingdom for humanitarian reasons will be placed at risk of deportation as a result of the Bill?
  Finally, will my hon. Friend confirm that the article to which I alluded is misleading about the Government's approach to the political activities of asylum seekers? Of course asylum seekers have the right to free speech and political association, just like everyone else in this country, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reiterate the point that, if someone who has absolutely no history of political association stands up in front of a camera and says something offensive to the regime back home, for the sole purpose of being able to say, "I cannot go back because I have offended the regime," he is making a mockery of the rules. Only in those circumstances have the Government said that the way in which a person makes such statements and assertions can and should be taken into consideration before a final judgment is made.
  I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to agree that the kind of criticism levelled against the Bill before its Committee stage no longer has
  226
  any foundation—if it ever did—and I hope we shall be able to make clear beyond peradventure the ridiculous nature of such scurrilous comments.
  The Government amendment seems to have everyone's approval. I hope that my hon. Friend will kindly confirm my assertions so that we can safely put to bed all the misrepresentations of the Government's intentions and so that we can all be happy.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I do not believe that either the new clauses or Government amendment No. 25 are strictly necessary. The Government do not take on commitments that they do not, in good faith, intend to keep—nor do they exercise their commitments in a way that conflicts with our international obligations. It could be argued that there is a whole range of obligations relevant to the Bill besides the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees and the 1953 European convention on human rights, to which the new clauses refer. I suspect that if we made a list of them and inserted them into the Bill, the only practical result would be to provide pegs on which to hang more or less obscure arguments for judicial review. I do not believe that that would assist the asylum seeker with a well-founded fear of persecution. It would certainly complicate and delay the procedures for determining applications fairly that the Bill was designed to speed up.
  We shall come to debate the International Labour Organisation convention and the European social charter in connection with the final group of amendments, so I shall not mention them now; indeed, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) was brief, I shall not say a great deal more myself.
  As the United Nations convention is central to the Bill, I undertook in Committee to consider transferring from the rules the words that make it clear that nothing in those rules—which have to be made under the Immigration Act 1971—shall lay down any practice that would be contrary to the convention. Amendment No. 25 does precisely that, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central welcomes it.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) also welcomed the amendment in general, but asked me a specific question. I believe that his worries are unfounded, but I shall re-examine the amendment and make quite sure that it does what it is intended to do. I believe that the amendment means that any rule that was in breach of the United Nations convention would be ultra vires and that the court would rule it unlawful were it brought before it.
  I welcomed the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) because he produced useful correctives to some of the things said by some groups, not least the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. My hon. and learned Friend referred in particular to the Moorhead article, which was deeply misinformed, caused a lot of unnecessary worry and work and wasted a great deal of newsprint.
  My hon. and learned Friend wanted assurances on four matters—first, that the Government always pay close attention to the medical foundation's reports. I can assure him that we always do, but people can have marks or wounds on their bodies for many reasons and there can be various interpretations of the way in which they have come by them. We have to make our decision not merely on the basis of a report saying that the marks are consistent with

  227
  one form of treatment but on the basis of the other evidence that we have about the antecedents of the particular individual claiming asylum.
  My hon. and learned Friend asked whether signs of recent torture could mean that the person was a genuine asylum seeker. I forget exactly how he worded his question. Signs of recent torture constitute very convincing evidence that someone is genuine, but, in deciding whether to grant asylum, we must ask ourselves whether that person has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns home. The fact that someone has been deliberately injured by another person is not conclusive, but it goes a long way to establishing a claim if the other evidence suggests that he would have fear of persecution if we sent him back to where he came from.
  It has been suggested—I believe in the article by Caroline Moorhead—that, because of the measures in the Bill, people who have been given leave to remain will be put at risk of being sent away again. Nothing in the Bill alters their situation. Those who have been given exceptional leave to remain must apply to have that leave renewed, but that happens under existing law. The difference will be that if, for some reason, that person's leave is not renewed—which would not be as a result of the Bill—the Bill would ensure that he had the right of appeal to the special adjudication authority in respect to his turned-down asylum claim. That is the only respect in which the position of someone given leave to remain in Britain temporarily or indefinitely—certainly temporarily—can be altered, and it is a change to that person's advantage.
  My hon. and learned Friend asked me how behaviour in this country could bear upon someone's asylum claim. A person's behaviour can bear only on his credibility, not on the objective question whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return home. Often, those matters turn, at least in part, on the credibility of an individual. That credibility is certainly undermined if a person indulges in activities in this country which are inconsistent with his previous activities and are calculated to create for him an asylum claim or to enhance one that he already has. The matter goes to credibility; it does not go to the final decision. Because it is a factor in credibility, it seems only fair and honest to say so in the rules.
  There are few cases in which credibility is undermined in that way, but there have been a number in which people have no fear of asylum in the country from which they came but have engaged in activities here in order to construct such a fear because they wished to stay longer than their visitors' entry visas allowed. However, the measure will not be used to send people back to a country in which they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
  Although the Bill is designed to make our procedures more efficient, it is predicated on the basis that someone who arrives here with a well-founded fear of persecution in the place from which he has come will find a safe haven. That is the intention of the Bill and that is why I am happy to introduce amendment No. 25, although, strictly speaking, it is unnecessary. However, it is a reassurance and a signal. If, by any chance, any Government should produce rules in conflict with the United Nations convention, they would have to amend this primary legislation before they could avoid a court striking it down.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

  PROCEDURE ON RULES RELATING TO ASYLUM
  '. The following paragraph is inserted after the second paragraph of section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971—
  "No rule relating to asylum, or change in such a rule, shall have effect until the statement of that rule, or change in a rule, has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Darling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end add—
  '(3) The Secretary of State shall from time to time lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act, such rules to be known as the Immigration (Asylum) Rules, and the Secretary of State shall consult with, and have regard to the views of, the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in drawing up such rules.'.
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps I may make two preliminary points. The new clause, together with amendment No. 1, bears upon the rules. Perhaps the Bill is unusual in that it depends on the Lord Chancellor's rules of procedure and the immigration rules to make it work. It was not surprising, therefore, that in Committee there was much discussion about the rules, as a result of which changes have been made.
  My first preliminary point is that it is extremely unfortunate that the revised rules—there are substantial revisions both in the procedure rules and in the immigration rules—were made available to members of the Committee only at 1 o'clock this afternoon. It follows, therefore, that my remarks may stand to be corrected, as I may have missed some points that I did not see in the comparison that I was able to make between the old rules and the new rules between 1 o'clock and 3.30 this afternoon. That is unfortunate. There is a duty on hon. Members to scrutinise legislation before it is passed into law. Fortunately, there is an opportunity in another place further to examine the rules as they bear upon the Bill.
  My second preliminary point—the Minister might he more cheered by it—is that substantial concessions have been made by the Government. I regard that as a tribute not only to the argument that took place in Committee but to the substantive pressure that was brought to bear on the Government by the many agencies, organisations and individuals outside the House who were concerned at the Government's original proposals. Some of them, including the author of the article to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred, played their part in making the Government think again.
  I do not believe in unnecessarily using words such as "climbdown", "U-turn" and so on—I would not go that far. However, it is fair to say that the Government have brought forward the Bill in a hasty manner. Our debate about legal aid demonstrated that the Home Secretary and the Government had not fully thought out the implications contained in the Home Secretary's statement on 2 July last year, let alone in the Bill itself. It is noticeable that the trumpeting that took place last summer and last autumn, particularly at the Tory party conference, has not been repeated today because the Government know that they have had to change their mind on a number of significant

  229
  points. We shall still seek to divide the House because, despite the many concessions that the Government have made, the Bill remains flawed in one or two essential respects.
  I shall deal briefly with the various papers that the Minister has been good enough to make available to members of the Committee. I assume that they are available to other hon. Members as well. I refer first to the Lord Chancellor's draft rules relating to procedure. The first concession that the Government have made—it is extremely welcome and it attracted much comment—was that applicants seeking leave to appeal now have 10 days to do so rather than the ridiculously short period of two days provided in the original rules. Paragraph 29 of the new draft provides that time limits in general may be waived, I think, on cause shown. That is an extremely welcome concession. It will undoubtedly remove some of the injustices that we feared would occur with individuals having only two days in which to lodge their appeals.
  6.45 pm
  Equally, I very much welcome the Government's change of heart with regard to oral hearings, up to a point. It is now provided quite clearly in paragraph 9 that hearings will be determined orally in two quite specific circumstances. However, there is still no right of appeal for applicants as such. There is only an entitlement to apply for leave to appeal. When leave to appeal is granted, an oral hearing follows, but there is no right to an oral hearing when arguing the point of leave to appeal. The two things are, of course, quite different.
  I am pleased that the original paragraph 5(7) in the original rules, which required that the special adjudicator should grant the applicant leave to appeal unless he was satisfied that the applicant did not have an arguable claim for asylum, appears—at least from my preliminary reading at lunchtime time today—to have been dropped. I make that point because we argued strongly in Committee that, when considering whether an applicant has an arguable claim, it would be necessary to assess matters of credibility. Therefore, the Minister's point in response to the hon. and learned Member for Burton was crucial when considering the terms of paragraph 5(7) of the old rules.
  However, it would appear that in the new rules paragraph 5(7) is not replicated in its original form. If that means that there is a different onus on the special adjudicator, it is to be welcomed. As I have said, that point will require further consideration—I hope that it will be in another place—because I have not had an opportunity to consider whether in the fine print of the rules there is some further qualification.
  The amendments to the Lord Chancellor's procedure rules are welcome. I am sure that those who have brought pressure to bear on the Government will be pleased that some changes have been made.
  On the draft immigration rules and the revision that was published today, again substantial concessions have been made, although questions remain. When considering credibility, the first thing that has to be said is that, in the original rules, the Home Office had to consider a number of factors such as the failure of an applicant to apply for asylum immediately on his arrival in the United Kingdom, whether false representations were made, and whether—it is an important point—documents were destroyed,
  230
  damaged or disposed of. We cited the example of the Kurd fleeing Iraq, who would not have arrived in this country with proper travel documents because he would never have got out of Iraq if he had had such documents. I am pleased that the Government have now included an important caveat, which is that, if no reasonable explanation is adduced, such matters may affect an applicant's credibility; in other words, it appears that the applicant for asylum has an opportunity to explain why no immediate claim was made or why the documents were destroyed or damaged. That concession is important.
  It is important to note that the interpretation of the rules will be crucial. Although the Minister has published a guide to the Home Office procedure—I am bound to say that it is more like a tourist guide to the Home Office rather than a detailed examination of the standing orders—I hope that, once he has a final draft or the actual standing orders given to those who interpret the rules, he will make them available. Although the changes that the Government have made are very welcome, or at least appear to be so, the interpretation will be crucial.
  The point is important when one examines the new paragraph 6(d) which deals with those applicants for asylum who undertake any activities in this country which might be calculated to enhance a claim for asylum. The Minister and the Home Secretary graphically painted a picture of someone who had never any intention of applying for asylum but who, deciding that this was the best avenue for extending leave to stay in the country, would appear in front of the television camera, denounce the Government of the country from where he came and then seek asylum.
  The Government have now changed the paragraph to qualify it to the extent that the behaviour must be inconsistent with previous beliefs and behaviour. That is welcome, but I should like the Minister to tell us how we judge whether it is inconsistent. It is clearly a matter of judgment. Any of us who have even a modicum of experience of these matters will know that much depends on the individual officer in deciding whether such and such an expression might be consistent with beliefs.
  For example, I might hold very strong beliefs about something but might never say anything about it. Then one day I am moved for one reason or another to make a public utterance. Someone judging me could say that I had never said anything in the past about these things, whereas I could have said things privately or things that had never come to public notice. It would, therefore, be helpful if the Minister could let us know what guidelines for interpretation are to be applied to the provisions of that subclause.
  Equally, I am pleased that the blanket statement that the actions of anyone who appeared to act on behalf of an applicant could be held against the applicant has now been removed, and it is clearly stated that it has to be the actions of anyone acting as an agent. However, one or two problems remain, one of which I would like to deal with.
  I am not certain whether the influx of Albanian refugees or those who purported to seek asylum in Italy is likely to be replicated in the United Kingdom because of our geographical position, but the same thing may happen on a small scale: we have had experience of groups of 10, 20 or 30 applying. I am concerned that paragraph 9 of the revised rules still seems to provide that an assessment can be made of one individual and the outcome of that assessment will determine the applications of the rest of the

  231
  group. That does not seem to me to be desirable, but, rather, fraught with dangers. It is one of the flaws that the Government must tackle. Presumably these draft rules will have to be further revised because they must be approved by the House, but I should like the Government to think about that.
  Similarly, on the question of the third-country cases, the Government have made an improvement in the original provision, but there is still this concern about the interpretation of a safe third country.
  I have not dealt exhaustively with these rules because it is impossible to do so on Report, but 1 thought it right to highlight some of the problems which I expect and hope will be addressed in another place.
  The Minister has also been good enough to have published the proposed procedure for dealing with asylum applications. The more I read it, the more it appeared not to be guidelines that would be issued to the immigration officers and the Home Office staff who will deal with these things but more the sort of glossy publication that one might find as a guide to the Home Office and how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked for this to be made available and he may have something more to say about it.
  One thing struck me in paragraph 9 which has some bearing on a later group of amendments dealing with housing: it still makes the point that there may be some delay before asylum applications reach the asylum division and are recorded, and that has some bearing on whether an individual ought to be housed under clause 3 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to talk about delays which are, in some people's view, endemic in the Home Office and which, when they affect an individual, are a serious matter.
  Something also ought to be said—because it has a direct bearing on the terms of this amendment—on the political asylum questionnaire that the Minister has made available. I had the opportunity of looking at one of these, perhaps in a slightly different form, when I visited terminal 3 at Heathrow a couple of years ago. My only concern is that the questions are fairly general. When I watched an officer going through an applicant's form with him, he stuck rather rigidly to the questions; where one answer came up that did not quite fit in with the question, the officer said,
  "Well, the question does not say that so we'll just put 'Yes'."
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will appreciate that the immigration officer is filling in a preliminary questionnaire to get some basic facts down, not as a member of the asylum division staff who is assessing a case. I just want to make sure that the hon. Member is distinguishing who he is talking about, because the immigration officer has a limited task which is to get some basic facts down.
  Mr. Darling: I apologise. I was using the general term. I was surrounded by immigration officers that day. He was, as I understand it, a member of the asylum division. If the Minister doubts it, I am afraid that I did not ask him to identify himself with name, rank and number, but I was led to believe that that is what he was. I confess that my attention was more taken up with the form itself and with the exchange of questioning between the "officer", if I might call him that, the interpreter and the person seeking asylum.
  232
  The central thrust of our complaint about the immigration rules—I suppose that it goes to the heart of one of our objections to the Bill—is that, contrary to what was said in the press release when the Bill was introduced, there is no right of appeal; in fact, the right of appeal has been taken away from in-country people. The only thing that remains is the right to seek leave to appeal; that remains in the rules, as I understand it. There is no oral hearing to be allowed, which is something that we argued for when arguing for leave to appeal.
  For that reason we believe that the rules are fundamentally flawed, but, as I indicated at the start, and having entered the caveat that I must enter in case I am faulted later—that the opportunity to look at these rules was substantially less than we should have liked—it appears that the Government have accepted many of the criticisms that were levelled at them, and even if I had any doubt about that from my reading of the rules I think that my assertion would be greatly supported by the fact that the Home Secretary is not proposing to speak on the Bill. That speaks eloquently of the extent to which the Government have changed their minds since the Bill was introduced last year.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the House did not have the revised draft rules earlier. I produced the original draft rules in time for First Reading. They have been revised extensively in the light of what was said in Committee and other comments upon them and because of our own desire at the Home Office to make them clearer. This is a further draft, and I have no doubt that there may be further changes after discussions in another place and that we shall not get to a final draft until the rules are laid before the House in the normal way, when there will be the opportunity for the House to take a decision on them.
  I am almost reluctant to mention new clause 4 because the hon. Gentleman said little about it. However, it would require a change to the rules relating to asylum to be approved by both Houses before those provisions could come into effect.
  It would be unthinkable for the House not to have sufficient opportunity to debate and, if it so decides, to reject any changes in the asylum rules. That is why the Immigration Act 1971 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement of any changes in the immigration rules, leaving the House 40 days in which to debate them and, if it so desires, to reject them. If the House rejects the changes, the Secretary of State must lay before the House a statement making further changes. That provides an opportunity for the parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the rules while always allowing changes to be made quickly, where necessary. I shall make only the basic observation that since September 1990 there have been nine different changes in the immigration rules, but the Opposition have asked for debates on none of them.
  7 pm
  Mr. Darling: To be fair, and for the benefit of those who follow the proceedings in this place, may I point out that many changes to the immigration rules are minor and uncontroversial? I am sure that the Minister will recognise that it is only when matters of substance need to be debated that we request and get debates. Changes to the

  233
  immigration rules may involve adding or deleting a country from a list, which is not always a worthy reason for detaining the House for an evening's debate.
  Mr. Lloyd: That is perfectly right and that is what I would have gone on to say, but the hon. Gentleman has put it very well. I wish, however, that he would talk more about his new clause, which requires that there should be such a debate before any changes could be effected. The Opposition were, of course, right not to press for debates on minor matters, but they are introducing provisions that require a debate before any changes can be effective. They have the opportunity to ensure that there is a debate within 40 days of the introduction of any such changes.
  I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the further revisions to the rules of procedure and to the immigration rules themselves. I am glad that he is pleased with the changes. I do not want to undermine his satisfaction and, because he was generous to me, I shall not argue with him much about the fact that fundamental changes have been pressed upon us and that he does not intend to press us as far as his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) by suggesting that there has been a climbdown. When he reads the rules, he will see that, in principle, they remain as they were before, except in areas on which we specifically consulted.
  I refer to the length of time that somebody has to ask for leave to appeal. That was always a matter for consultation and we have changed the provisions to the 10 working days' requirement. That is the general requirement in the tribunal and special appellate system. The Home Office has sought to explain more clearly in words the original intention that was incorporated in the rules—to explain them more fully in cases where there has been misunderstanding, and generally to make the provisions clearer. In that sense, our discussions in Committee and the comments that have been made by those outside the House, especially the UNHCR, have been helpful.
  As a number of areas on which I could comment are covered by later amendments, it would not be sensible for me to take up the time of the House with them now—
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister has sent those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee a consultation draft of the statutory instrument and the immigration rule changes. Although they require some study and application, we have now had them for only a couple of hours. Exactly what procedure does the Minister propose to adopt on the method of consultation? As far as I am aware, consultation has not taken this form previously for Members of Parliament. Is the Minister inviting representations from us now, or is he proposing that, following the representations, there may be a debate on a prayer not to agree the statutory instrument?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am publishing them in draft to invite representations and comments from the House either now during the debate or from hon. Members after the debate or from organisations outside the House in an attempt to allow informed discussion in another place. We shall then produce another set of rules—possibly exactly the same, but perhaps containing further changes—that will then come before both Houses in the normal way for their approval. There is time for further representation—
  Mr. Corbyn: How much time?
  Mr. Lloyd: Not until the legislation is on the statute book, but not very much later than that date, which I hope will be within a limited period. This is not the end of the representation period. If the hon. Gentleman would like to consider the provisions further, he can then let me know his views. He does not need to feel that he has lost his chance or that he need detain the House this evening while he reads through them and cogitates.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the "arguable claim" and to the fact that the adjudicator would judge, on the papers, whether there was an arguable claim. The hon. Gentleman was pleased that those provisions are not in the latest draft of the procedural rules. However, the paper that is attached to the procedural rules may have come adrift on his copy. That paper suggests that, as I said in Committee, I want to see that description reworded and included in the primary legislation because I believe—[Interruption.] I shall show the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. It is here. So that there can be no misunderstanding, I advise the House that the phrase "arguable claim" has come out of the rules so that it can be included in the primary legislation in a different form.
  I regret that I have been unable to produce that amendment for debate this evening, but we look forward to introducing it in another place. We shall seek to make it clear that, if the adjudicator believed every word of the case that was put to him by the appellant, he would have to acknowledge that that would be a claim that was at least arguable under the United Nations convention. The adjudicator makes his decision, not on the credibility of the applicant, but on the claim that the applicant has made to him. The adjudicator will say to himself, "Although I may not believe that this looks true and the Home Office is right to disbelieve it, if it looks true, that claim would be arguable under the United Nations convention, so I must have a full oral hearing."
  That is how we filter out those manifestly unfounded claims in which there is no disagreement about the fact that the individual has come from a third safe country where his claim would be properly heard, or, as was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, those cases where by no stretch of the imagination could the United Nations convention cover that claim. I refer, for example, to the case of the woman who sought asylum because she said that her mother-in-law was interfering in her marriage so much that the marriage would break up if she and her husband were not allowed to come here to live. We are talking about a low threshold, but one which the Government believe necessary to filter out the manifestly unfounded claims. In fact, that threshold is much lower than the one that was produced by the Bar Council in the rather eccentric evidence and suggestions that it has sent to me.
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps the Minister could tell us from where this information comes. He says that it is from a piece of paper that may have become detached from the papers that he sent us at lunchtime. The issue of what the special adjudicator has to decide is crucial. If the Minister is saying that that information is not in the rules, the draft rules or the Bill, but is on a detached piece of paper, he

  235
  appears to be falling short of the standards that we normally expect from the Government. On what detached piece of paper is that information?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the piece of paper that I have detached, and he may read it. The hon. Gentleman should worry less than he does because the amendment that will be produced from that is not before us today. It will, I am afraid, have to be introduced in another place, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to think that "arguable case" had simply been dropped from the rules. The Government propose to do what I presaged in Committee, which is to introduce an amendment into the primary legislation that will make it quite clear how low the threshold must be before the adjudicator can refuse the claim to appeal.
  The hon. Gentleman raised several other points. On the question of credibility, he referred in particular to paragraph 6(d):
  "that the applicant has undertaken any activities in the United Kingdom before or after lodging his application which are inconsistent with his previous beliefs and behaviour and calculated to create or substantially enhance his claim for refugee status."
  That, of course, is the kind of question—and there are many of them—that the asylum division has to answer in each case. It has to look at the totality of the claim, what the individual says, and all the available evidence so that it can make a fair decision that takes everything into account.
  The rules indicate that these are matters which affect credibility, have always affected credibility and must always affect credibility—not necessarily deleteriously, because if there is a good answer it will explain the point. These matters are inevitably taken into account where the totality of a claim is being considered. It is only fair and honest that this be put down in writing and indicated clearly, and that it should continue to be the case, since some interested individuals, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, do not quite realise that this is the case. We shall be coming later to a number of these points.
  I cannot support the proposals tabled by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. He did not give them much support himself. On the rules, I am glad that he is pleased with the changes that have been made. I hope that on further study, when he has had longer to look at them, he will be even more pleased. This is a second draft and we are still open to suggestions and criticisms. My aim is to ensure that the Government's original intentions come over clearly. I believe that the changes that we have made have helped and that the Opposition, although not assenting to them all, have found them more satisfactory. For that I am grateful.
  Mr. Darling: I will not argue with the Minister's explanations. It really does not matter why the rules have been changed. I believe that, after further examination, further improvements will be suggested. Many of the changes are welcome, but there is much further to go. Incidentally, I said that I would not use the term "climbdown" with regard to the rules but I would not depart for one minute from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about the Government's change of heart on the legal aid, advice and assistance scheme. That is most certainly a climbdown.
  236
  On the question of what constitutes an arguable claim, it is regrettable that the Government's proposals are not contained in the Bill, the draft rules or even the second draft; they are contained in what appears to be a press notice indicating that the Government intend to change their mind on the question. That is extremely unfortunate. It is the sort of behaviour that has dogged this Bill since its heralding in July last year. It appears that the Government have it in mind to make further amendments, some of them substantial. I am glad of that. The longer the Government continue to amend the Bill, the better are the chances that some of the risks that were quite rightly highlighted during the passage of the Bill will be lessened.
  We remain dissatisfied with the rules, particularly on the question of leave to appeal, and for that reason we will press the new clause to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 287.

  Division No. 46]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Eastham, Ken

  Allen, Graham

  Edwards, Huw

  Alton, David

  Enright, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fearn, Ronald

  Ashton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  Battle, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Beith, A. J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Bellotti, David

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Boateng, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hain, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hardy, Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carr, Michael

  Haynes, Frank

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Greville

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

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Eadie, Alexander

  Kirkwood, Archy

  237

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Randall, Stuart

  Lambie, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Lamond, James

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Reid, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Robertson, George

  Lewis, Terry

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooney, Terence

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCartney, Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McLeish, Henry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Clare

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, Dr John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Stephen, Nicol

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Vaz, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Brien, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Worthington, Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Radice, Giles

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Allason, Rupert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Ashby, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Chris

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butterfill, John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Boswell, Tim

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bottomley, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Churchill, Mr

  238

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Jack, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, James

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Eggar, Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hannam, Sir John

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mudd, David

  Harris, David

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hind, Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  239

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sumberg, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Portillo, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Price, Sir David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tredinnick, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Viggers, Peter

  Shelton, Sir William

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waller, Gary

  Shersby, Michael

  Ward, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Speed, Keith

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Speller, Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

  THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD
  'No statutory instrument giving effect to or supplementing any of the provisions of this Act shall contain any provision depriving a person of a right to be heard before a special adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.'.—[Mr. Fraser.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 4, in clause 5, page 5, line 39, at end add—
  '(8) Rule 14 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 shall have effect in respect of appeals from the special adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.'.
  No. 5, in clause 6, page 5, line 48, after 'law', insert 'or fact'.
  No. 6, in page, 6, line 12, at end add—
  '(5) For the purposes of this section the words "question of law" include the question as to whether an asylum seeker has had the opportunity to be heard and to be represented before a special adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.'.
  No. 9, in schedule 2, page 10, line 31, at end insert
  'except on a question of law in those cases where the parties to the application for leave have been heard and have appeared before the special adjudicator, but otherwise a refusal shall attract a right of appeal.'.
  240
  No. 10, in page 11, line 14, at end insert
  'and an application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal shall be on any question of law or fact material to that determination.'.
  Mr. Fraser: New clause 7 would prevent the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor from making any immigration appeal rules that would deprive an applicant on an appeal, or seeking leave to appeal, of a hearing before the special adjudicator or the immigration appeal tribunal. It is a matter to which we referred in our previous debate and about which we argued at great length in Committee. We return, however, to our belief that those who have a case to be heard have the right to have their case put to an adjudicator personally, to be heard personally before him, rather than the application being submitted in writing for leave to appeal.
  Amendment No. 4 would incorporate in the new draft rules, which the Government have published today, rule 14 of the immigration appeal rules of 1984. Rule 14 of the set of rules that apply to existing appeals gives a person whose appeal has been turned down by an adjudicator the right to obtain leave to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal on a point of law—that is the first limb—and provides an exception that takes effect in those cases where it is argued by the appellant that to refuse leave to remain would put the Government in breach of the convention on refugees. In that second, limited area, there is a right of appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal.
  7.30 pm
  By means of amendment No. 4, we propose to preserve the special right that has been incorporated in the appeal rules ever since they were first enunciated. I think that the Minister would agree that the 1984 rules are a rehash of earlier rules. It is important to draw attention to rule 14 because unless its effect is preserved the new rules will represent a significant subtraction from the rights of claimants for political asylum who are in the United Kingdom.
  Amendment No. 5 is an alternative to the new clause. When someone had not been able to exercise the right to be heard before a special adjudicator, the breach of that fundamental right would in itself amount to a ground for appeal on a point of law to the adjudicator and thence to the immigration appeal tribunal.
  Amendment No. 6 is an alternative to amendment No. 5. Perhaps it goes further, because it would widen appeal rights to include an appeal on a point of fact. If the Minister does not concede the new clause and amendment No. 5, amendment No. 6 would introduce a right of appeal on a point of fact and everyone would be able to exercise that right of appeal.
  Amendment No. 9 replicates amendment No. 5 in its application to the immigration appeal tribunal. Amendment No. 10 replicates amendment No. 6, again in respect of the immigration appeal tribunal. At the heart of the new clause and the amendments is the right to be heard, which is fundamental to the exercise of an appellant's rights before any judicial or quasi-judicial body.
  The Minister may be going about the matter in the wrong way and thereby making a rod for his own back. He said earlier that to obtain leave to appeal it is necessary only to write out a claim, and if every word of it is true that must constitute a ground for giving leave to appeal to the special adjudicator.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is only if everything in the claim is true and it provides grounds that are arguable under the United Nations convention. Only then will the adjudicator be obliged to allow an oral appeal.
  Mr. Fraser: That is what I meant. As the right to be heard is being removed, something of a premium is being put on a case that will not be made under oath and in such terms that it will be difficult for the special adjudicator to resist giving leave to appeal. That is why I said that the Minister may be making a rod for his own back.
  The proper solution might be to adopt the procedure of the High Court in cases of judicial review. In such cases—this is not exclusively so—the applicant makes an application in writing to be considered by the judge. In many cases, the judge will give leave for judicial review—in other words, leave to appeal against a decision refusing the status of political asylum. In those cases where the judge does not give leave on the written application, there is automatically the right to renew the application and to make an oral application to the divisional court and to be heard. It is the right to be heard at one point or another in the process which is at the heart of the new clause and the amendments.
  In the long run, it would satisfy the basic tenets of justice if our amendments were accepted. Ironically enough, they might provide greater satisfaction for the Minister. Perhaps we can reach agreement and the Minister will be able to say that, on consideration, he will ensure that the Bill, if not amended in the terms that I put forward but by means of similar drafting, will eventually establish the fundamental right to be heard that should appear in this legislation.
  Mr. Corbyn: I support new clause 7 and the amendments that are grouped with it. I do so with no great joy because they take up one of the issues that we debated at great length in Committee. We were concerned about the lack of proper rights to appeal for those seeking political asylum or any other sort of asylum, social, religious or whatever. I moved an amendment in Committee, with the support of others, which would have prevented the Home Secretary having the right to remove anyone from this country until all the legal avenues open to him or her had been exhausted, including the European Court of Human Rights. It seems that we are in the unfortunate position where the hated Immigration Act 1971, which established the immigration appeal tribunal system, is the only legislation on which we can fall back to provide some avenue for appeal that is slightly better than that of an adjudicator.
  I do not believe that the Government have acted in any great belief in the right of appeal. Instead, I believe that they are under pressure from the courts—court administrators and, no doubt, groups of High Court judges who get together for port at the end of their dinners to chat about these matters—which are concerned about the many judicial reviews that have been sought and the hearings that have been granted.
  It is a condemnation of the United Kingdom's ability to allow those seeking asylum a proper avenue of legal appeal if the only route open to them is for their solicitor to ensure that an application for judicial review is heard. The system of judicial review was not set up for that. It is a long stop that has become the norm because there is nothing else open to applicants and those who represent them. We are
  242
  saying that those who are denied the right of asylum should at least have the opportunity to appear before the immigration trial tribunal. That is because it is better than no form of appeal and not because I think that it is an especially good system. It is not acceptable to have asylum applications dealt with in the present manner and in the way in which the Bill envisages.
  Any form of justice should include the presumption of innocence and a separation of legal and judicial powers. My experience of immigration law and asylum law is that there is no presumption of innocence, especially in immigration law. There is no presumption at any stage in favour of the person who is seeking asylum in this country. There is a presumption against them that is contrary to the principles of English law. It leaves enormous powers in the hands of the Home Secretary, who has been ready to use them. One thinks of the poor teacher from Zaire who was disgracefully bundled out of this country, apparently lost in Charles de Gaulle airport, and was finally dumped back in Zaire—from which he had fled in great fear. All that was because the Home Secretary was not prepared to take action. One thinks also of the Tamils who were wrongfully deported to Sri Lanka. There were other instances in which the actions of the Home Office and of the Home Secretary in particular were found seriously wanting. The amendments will not right all those wrongs, but they provide an opportunity for the due process of law and for an appeal.
  The alternative suggested by the Home Office is a series of adjudicators. I do not doubt that many of them will be well informed and well trained. However, the most well-informed and well-trained people are capable of making mistakes. The point at issue is how one can introduce checks and balances into a legal system that allows mistakes to be made without offering any chance of rectifying them. The Government's proposals provide no such opportunity, and the amendments will make a slight improvement to what is really a pretty squalid little Bill.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I am prompted to speak against new clause 7 by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). There is of course in the Bill a presumption against applicants for asylum. Everyone would concede that. The reason is that a large number of the people who make applications have already destroyed their identity documents.
  As to the immigration appeal tribunal, the Bill has been brought before the House because that tribunal is swamped and is in administrative difficulties.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman should be more cautious before stating that
  "a large number of the people who make applications have already destroyed their identity documents."
  Does he have any proof? That is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman should check the figures. Has he read all the applications that are claimed to be bogus, or does the hon. Gentleman rely—like the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—on the front page of the News of the World for his information?
  Mr. Allason: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify that point. My understanding is that two thirds of those people arriving in the United Kingdom claiming asylum do so with forged, mutilated or no documents. It is in those circumstances that the Government have brought the Bill before the House,

  243
  which seems perfectly reasonable. The old system clearly cannot cope with the level of applicants, and to return to it would be absolutely dotty.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) rightly said that the central issue is the right of leave to appeal. That is why I registered surprise when we appeared to reach that aspect when debating the previous group of amendments. The amendments now before us deal primarily with the Bill's requirement that where an applicant's claim is rejected by the Home Office, and before he can make a full oral appeal, he must obtain leave from the adjudicator, who will decide from the papers whether to grant it.
  In Committee, and when debating the previous group of amendments, 1 made it clear that the rule is necessary to avoid manifestly unfounded and third safe country claims introducing unnecessary delays into the system. In third country cases, speed is of the essence if we are to be sure that the third safe country will receive the applicant and consider his or her claim fully.
  Mr. Corbyn: The third country aspect is referred to in more measured tones in the draft rules that the Minister published today. In Committee, I expressed concern that third countries might on the face of it appear safe, yet the reality of someone from parts of north Africa living in Paris or another major French city, given the degree of racist violence that is to be found there, might make France, for example, far from safe. Does the Minister concede that an apparently safe third country may not prove to be so for some individuals?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: My prime consideration is whether an asylum claim will be properly heard under the terms of the UN convention. Some claims will be properly heard in a third country, but that may not be so in respect of some individuals from a particular country. We would not seek to return a person if we were not satisfied that a country had a proper system for considering asylum cases and that it would assess thoroughly the claim of the individual in question. We always refer third country cases to UKIAS, as the point of contact with the UNHCR in respect of such matters.
  I cannot tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that reports of violence or discriminatory behaviour in a particular country would of themselves serve as a ground for never returning someone there as a third safe country. However, the totality of a person's claim, even in respect of a third safe country, is taken into account—and there is the right to seek leave to appeal before the adjudicator. If the adjudicator considers that there is an arguable reason for an individual believing that he or she would not receive reasonable treatment of the kind required under the United Nations convention in the third safe country, he would allow an appeal to be heard. That matter is for the adjudicator.
  The original draft procedural rules made it clear that an adjudicator had to attend a full hearing unless he was satisfied that the applicant did not have an arguable case—that, even if all the applicant said was true, it still did not add up to a claim that could be argued even under the provisions of the 1951 convention. From the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood, it was clear that it was
  244
  dawning on him how low was the threshold in practice. Therefore, I do not accept that the Opposition's fears are justified.
  If there is a soupcon of doubt in the adjudicator's mind that there is the beginning of a case that can be argued, he must go to an oral hearing. If a decision of the Home Office hinged on the applicant's credibility, the adjudicator would be compelled to permit an oral hearing. He could not say to himself, "I am not surprised that the Home Office turned down that individual, because I cannot imagine anyone believing his story." He could not refuse an oral hearing on that basis, but must allow one on the basis of the credibility of the individual and the tale that he told.
  The adjudicator can refuse an oral hearing only if he is certain that, even if the applicant's story is true, it does not bring that individual into the ambit of the 1951 convention. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether that should not only be spelt out more fully in the procedural rules but—as it is crucial—be written into the primary legislation. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that it should. I am sorry that the wording is not ready for this stage, but it is the Government's intention to table an appropriate amendment in another place.
  I hope that that will satisfy Opposition Members to some extent, especially as there is likely to be a further debate about the issue in the House of Commons. I feel that a filter should be available for claims that have no merit. I do not believe that we should allow appeal against a refusal of leave, given that such refusals will be issued only when there is no arguable case under the convention. If it were impossible to refuse a hearing on the papers, one of the Bill's purposes—its provision for manifestly unfounded applications to be dealt with speedily—would be undermined.
  If, however, an adjudicator ignored the criteria that I have described—whose liberality has been recognised by the hon. Member for Norwood—and refused an oral hearing although an arguable case existed, that would be exactly the kind of circumstance on which judicial review would properly bite. I do not believe that it will come to that; but the provision is there lest an adjudicator interpret the requirements too narrowly.
  Several amendments seek to ensure that appeals from the adjudicator to the tribunal are not confined to matters of law. I agree with that, but I do not think that such a provision should be contained in the legislation. The normal place for such measures is in the procedural rules, and the draft rules now include an amendment that widens the grounds to matters of fact. I do not believe, however, that the grounds for appeal to the High Court should be similarly widened; I think it right that appeals from the tribunal should still be confined to matters of law.
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Have I understood my hon. Friend correctly? Is he saying that the provision previously contained in rule 5(7), which referred to those with no arguable claim for asylum, will now be contained in the body of the Act?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is the Government's intention. I hoped that we would be able to discuss that provision tonight, but it will now be discussed in the other place; if it is accepted there, it will return to the House of Commons later.

  245
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested that the appeal rights had been brought under pressure by the requirements of the courts and the Government's desire for less judicial review. Certainly I hope that there will be less judicial review, but one of the main reasons for our proposals is the demonstrable unfairness of circumstances in which only some asylum seekers have the opportunity to appeal to an independent authority. Surely they should all have the same rights. Given our wish for a speedier process, the safeguard of an independent appeal system for everyone is especially important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is right: numbers have risen sharply. It is because of that increase that some of the measures in the Bill have been included. However, in so far as the burden of proof mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North exists, it was not caused by the greater numbers. When someone arrives and asks for asylum, it is natural to say, "Tell me about your experiences; I must be satisfied that you are indeed seeking asylum." That will inevitably place some burden on the asylum seeker, but one reason for the section of the rules that deals with credibility—although it may not govern the eventual decision—is that it is fair to expect someone with a well-founded claim to wish to co-operate with the authorities, and to reveal as much as he can about himself, his origins and his case. It is up to him, in the first place, to explain why he is seeking asylum.
  Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend has mentioned the number of asylum seekers who arrive with mutilated identity papers, or whose papers have been destroyed. What is the proportion?
  Mr. Lloyd: About two thirds of those who seek asylum at the ports, who themselves constitute about a quarter, or perhaps a third, of asylum seekers. The figure currently runs at 10,000 to 12,000 a year. Naturally, we ask why the people concerned have no papers, or why their papers have been mutilated, and in many cases they give convincing answers: indeed, their explanations may well enhance their credibility. It is reasonable, however, for us to make inquiries, to take the answers into account and to spell out the requirements in the rules, as we have always done.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act 1987 recognises that some people fleeing persecution are forced to destroy their real identity and to seek a false identity. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office does not intend to depart from the recognition that people who are fleeing for their safety may have no alternative but to destroy their identity, and travel with forged documents?
  Mr. Lloyd: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. No one who has arrived with mutilated documents, or without documents, will ever be refused asylum in this country. As I have said, however, such people will be asked for an explanation. The answer may well affect their credibility: it may enhance that credibility, but it will often do the opposite.
  Mr. Tim Janman: One of the main reasons for the Bill is the massive increase over the past two or three years in the number of people either seeking entry on the basis of being asylum seekers, or entering with a
  246
  visitor's or student's visa and, after six or nine months, deciding—lo and behold!—that they are really political refugees.
  As the Bill acknowledges, it is essential to provide guaranteed safeguards to ensure that the applications of genuine political refugees are examined properly and—if proved to be genuine—dealt with accordingly. It is equally essential to provide a fast-track procedure to identify and weed out the vast majority of the people who constitute that increase in numbers—those who could not be thought other than thoroughly bogus except by fatuous do-gooders. Such people do a great disservice to genuine applicants for political refugee status.
  Mr. Boateng: The genuine tone and flavour of the hon. Gentleman's remarks are as we would expect, given his pedigree in this regard. It is not clear, however, to which amendment he is directing them.
  Mr. Janman: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I was in the middle of saying that it is important to establish procedures that will provide safeguards for genuine applications.
  Mr. Boateng: To which amendment does the hon. Gentleman refer?
  8 pm
  Mr. Janman: I am speaking to all the amendments that the House is currently considering. The hon. Gentleman will soon learn that my comments are about the collective impact of the amendments that the Labour party has tabled. I do not wish to get bogged down in the technical legalities of any particular amendment. The point that I was seeking to make when I gave way to the hon. Gentleman was that it is important that a mechanism should be put in place that ensures that the vast majority of applications that are clearly bogus can be weeded out effectively, efficiently and quickly. If that is not done, genuine applicants will have to wait much longer, and will be caught up in a massive queue.
  The Labour party is being as deceitful as ever. A general election is looming. The vast majority of ordinary working men and women, whom the Labour party purports to represent, are in favour of the provisions of the Bill and the new immigration rules that will also come into force. However, rather than just stand up and say, "We oppose the Bill because we want the outrageous things that have been going on during the last two or three years to continue," the Labour party has tabled amendments that look very nice on paper but whose effect, if they were accepted by the Government, would be to drive a coach and horses through the required changes that the Bill will bring about.
  If the amendments were accepted, we would end up maintaining a long-drawn-out appeals procedure for all these bogus applicants. They would be able to keep on appealing and we would be unable, therefore, to weed out quickly any bogus applications. We would therefore be unable to reduce the massive backlog of genuine applications.
  We know what these people do while their cases go on and on. Either they disappear into the inner depths of Birmingham or Bradford or wherever, or they meet and marry a British citizen, thereby bringing a new arrow into their armoury when it comes to arguing their case for being

  247
  allowed to remain in Britain, having entered this country in the first place by means of deceit and lies when they reached the port of entry.
  I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that the amendments should be resisted and treated with the contempt they deserve. They would undo the objective of the Bill, which is to deal with a very serious problem about which many of my constituents and, I am sure, people in general are becoming increasingly concerned. They expect the Government to plug the gap. I am pleased to see that they are plugging it. I note that, once again, the Labour party is trying to prevent measures being taken to sort out a problem that worries millions of people in this country.
  Mr. Fraser: I shall not respond to what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has just said, except in one respect. He said that he wanted a fast track procedure to get rid of undesirable people. That fast track procedure is on its way in Thurrock. It is called the general election.
  Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I hold my seat at the next election, I am sure that his party will have to choose a new candidate for the following election.
  Mr. Fraser: I was referring not to the hon. Gentleman's opponent but to him.
  I have an unpleasant surprise for the hon. Gentleman. He urged the Minister to resist the amendments. I intend to ask the leave of the House to withdraw them. The Minister has practically met the point that we made by means of two very important concessions. He intends to table an amendment in another place to deal with the matters that he outlined in his speech. If the amendment has the effect that the Minister said it would have, it will go a very long way towards meeting our point. It will ensure that, in practice, virtually every applicant for political asylum will be given an oral hearing. That is what we want. That is what I believe the Under-Secretary of State will give us. We shall have the opportunity to examine the matter again when the Bill returns here. We have almost got together on this issue.
  In addition, there are the substantial changes that were set out by the Under-Secretary of State. They are described in the draft rules governing appeals to the immigration appeal tribunal.
  I am grateful, for the time being, for the concessions that have been promised by the Under-Secretary of State. I am sorry to have disappointed the hon. Member for Thurrock.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  THE CONVENTION, CLAIMS FOR ASYLUM AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
  '(1A) Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
  Mr. Lloyd: Some concern was expressed in Committee about the definition of an asylum seeker being linked to the recording of a claim. There was considerable suspicion about what that meant. I explained in Committee that it was relevant only to clause 2 on fingerprinting and to clause 3 on housing and that there was no question of failing to treat someone as an asylum seeker and of denying access to the normal determination system on the pretext that the claim had not been recorded. I undertook to consider whether that could be clarified by means of a change of wording. I am happy to move the amendment. I believe that all these amendments will do just that.
  An asylum seeker will no longer be defined generally. Specific provisions are included in clauses 2 and 3, where they are needed. The concept of recording is now clearly limited—as it was, in practice, limited before—to the housing provisions of the Bill. It is essential for the proper handling of inquiries from local authorities that changes in entitlement, which no doubt we shall debate in the next group of amendments, should be triggered by information that is made available unequivocally from a central point in the Home Office. The result will be the same as that which was provided for in the initial wording, but I hope that hon. Members will find that the wording is now considerably clearer. Although it is still fairly complicated, it is now much easier to follow than before.
  I ought to draw the attention of the House to one side effect of the change. It will benefit asylum seekers in a very small way when it comes to the fingerprinting power. The power to fingerprint will cease not when the asylum seeker has his name taken off the record but when the asylum application has been either decided or withdrawn. There will be no delay on account of having to wait until a record has been made of one or other of those outcomes.
  I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by hon. Members. They clarify what led to a considerable discussion in Committee.
  Mr. Corbyn: I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Under-Secretary. First, let me deal with the recording of information at the point when the person becomes an asylum applicant. The procedure now is that they apply and are interviewed and a file is made up which, at some point, arrives at the central registration. At what point are such people considered to be asylum applicants? If there is a delay in obtaining the information at the recording point and its being received at Home Office, that can cause problems for applicants or their families when they seek, as is their right, income support or housing benefit payments. That can cause difficulties for the families concerned, because, inevitably, people who arrive here seeking political asylum tend to be extremely poor or even destitute. I raise this matter because I know from experience that Kurdish people with whose cases I have been dealing have been unable to obtain income support payments for months because of that difficulty.
  I am concerned also about the security of the information. As the Under-Secretary said, we shall he debating this later in the section dealing with housing. Information about someone seeking political asylum can be of interest to the regime from which the person is fleeing. Some years ago asylum applicants from Iraq faced

  249
  activities by agents of the Iraqi forces who attempted to attack them physically. Therefore, the security of the information and who has access to it are important matters. If, in that context, housing departments around the country are to be required to check with the Home Office whether an applicant has been recorded and is an asylum seeker, due care must be taken to ensure that the information is being passed to a proper representative of the local authority and not to somebody ringing up purporting to be such a representative. I know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment may deal with that later.
  In Committee we discussed the fingerprinting of asylum applicants, which is something that I and many of my colleagues find distasteful. Can we be assured that the fingerprinting will be kept entirely separate from any criminal records held by the police or the Home Office? At what stage are children too young for fingerprinting? The Minister refused to be drawn on that in Committee. He merely said that, where appropriate, older children will be fingerprinted. He did not give a minimum age limit below which that would not happen. This is an obnoxious section of the Bill and I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with those points.
  Mr. Darling: The terms of amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are generally welcome and acceptable and are in line with the amendments that we tabled in Committee. However, in light of the amendments, can the Minister tell us when someone becomes an asylum seeker? Is it when the claim is lodged or at some other time? Logically, in terms of clause 1, it would be when the application is lodged.
  When does someone cease to be an asylum seeker? It is clear from amendment No. 27 that it is when the claim has been "finally determined or abandoned". Would that apply universally throughout the Bill? That is not just important for housing; other matters may arise when it may be relevant to know whether someone is an asylum seeker.
  Amendment No. 28 is not as welcome, because it is adding rather than subtracting from the terms of clause 3. The result is that people cannot be considered for housing under clause 3 until their claim is recorded. In other words, it is the same as the provision in clause 1. The guidance notes to which I referred earlier say in paragraph 9:
  "Where applications are forwarded from the ports or submitted by post there may be a delay of several days before the application reaches the Asylum Division for initial assessment. During this period the asylum applicant is protected by the provisions of the 1951 UN Convention and may not be removed from the country. At the point at which the Asylum Division consider the documents and determine that an asylum claim has been made, the claim will be deemed to be 'recorded' by the Home Office."
  In other words, there may be a delay of several days—in Home Office talk that is a euphemism for a considerable time—in some cases.
  8.15 pm
  That is relevant in that if someone seeking housing is not an asylum seeker within the meaning of the Act—as it will be—they will not be housed. As we said in Committee, I understand the Government's anxiety to deter people and make life as difficult and unpleasant as possible—the Government made that clear in Committee—but once they are here and have submitted a claim, we cannot expect
  250
  them to sleep on the streets. We must house them somewhere. I am concerned that amendment No. 28 may cause undesirable difficulties. The Under-Secretary will tell us whether those difficulties are intended. Unless he can assure us that the Home Office is likely to speed up its recording procedures, the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will remain. Will the Under-Secretary comment on that?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: There is in practice no addition to clause 3. There may be an increase in the number of words in the clause, but they will have their effect from the distance of clause 1(2). There is no change in effect, but I believe that the clause will read more clearly. I was seeking to achieve that greater clarity.
  The recording for asylum seeking is relevant only for fingerprinting and housing. We debated these matters for a considerable time in Committee when I was seeking to reassure Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), that the use of the word "recorded" affects only the power to diminish the housing right by giving greater flexibility to the local authority and would set a term for when it is lawful for fingerprints to be required. It has no effect on the individual's right to have their case considered in this country or their right not to be returned to the country in which they say they have a well-founded fear of persecution. The protection of the United Nations convention is available to them as soon as they say that they want to seek asylum. We should not muddle things up. It must be put in the Bill so that there is a central list that local authorities know is authoritative. There is a delay of a day or two or longer before someone is accepted and given temporary admission as an asylum seeker and put on that central list. It does not undermine their rights under the United Nations convention or the Secretary of State's obligation to them.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North asked about security. That is important and it was raised in Committee. Care must be taken that the knowledge that somebody has applied for asylum is not divulged to people who ought not to know it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to add to what I have said. I think that what we—the Department of the Environment and the Home Office—are now considering will mean that communication on such issues will have to be by post. Although it may be slower, it is more secure, because the information would at least be directed to the people who should properly have it and who, it is reasonable to expect, will regard it with confidentiality as they do the numerous other pieces of confidential information that come their way in local authority departments.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether fingerprinting records will be kept separate—I think that he said "separate from the police". They will certainly be kept separately and will be available only—generally—for the purposes of the asylum division. However, if we receive proper inquiries in proper conditions from the police about an individual whose records we have, they will be made available to the police in the fight against crime. That is the case with any other information that the Home Office properly holds and it is what any other Government Department does and, indeed, what any other organisation would do. However, the records will not be part of the police's normal records and we would not expect to give

  251
  any other organisation—including the police—general access to them, but we shall respond when legitimate and proper requests are made to us by legitimate and proper authorities including, of course, the police.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North also asked about the fingerprinting of children. We seek to take powers in the Bill to fingerprint every asylum seeker, including children. As I said in Committee, we do not look to take fingerprints of young children—I shall not say how young such children would be because it would depend on the circumstances. I hope that it will be done as seldom as possible, but the reasons why we need the power are threefold.
  First, there can be an argument about whether a young person coming into this country is under 17 or under 18 or over 18 or over 19. Such a power would avoid that debate. Secondly, as has been said, children can come into the country by themselves and I think that it is right in such circumstances that we at least have the power to fingerprint them.
  There is a third set of circumstances in which such a power might be useful, so it is sensible to take the power now in primary legislation. There is some evidence of fraud by those who seek asylum under different names moving children between them. Some asylum applicants claim for other people's children. It is necessary for us at least to have the power to take fingerprints to connect particular children to particular adults for reasons of social security fraud and so that when children are brought in at ports and, as the evidence sometimes suggests, abandoned, we may find it necessary to fingerprint children so that they can be connected to particular adults.
  We do not want to fingerprint children—especially young ones—but I regret that it is a power which we must take. We shall have to see how our new tighter measures work and what they reveal in the way of difficulties before we decide administratively whether they should be used and, if so, how.
  Mr. Madden: The Minister is well aware of the widely held view that the act of fingerprinting inevitably criminalises the person seeking political asylum and that it is offensive, especially when applied to young people and to children. In Committee, the Minister resisted an age limit. We were pressing that no young person under the age of 18 should be fingerprinted, but the Minister made it clear that it would be left to the discretion of immigration officers. Will he reconsider, because many of us believe that the offence would be reduced if there were a clear rule that no child below a certain age should be fingerprinted in any circumstances?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman covers many of the issues with which I have just dealt. I know that there is a feeling that the taking of fingerprints somehow criminalises, but that view is peculiar to this country. It is a normal method of identification in other countries and it is, of course, the effective way which is available to us. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would object to our having pictures of every asylum seeker, but it is difficult to check 60,000 pictures. However, 60,000 fingerprints can easily be matched, collated and compared by experts. The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to abandon the one method which would enable us to check multiple claims, which will
  252
  either catch people who are being dishonest or clear the names of the vast numbers of asylum seekers who are entirely honest.
  The taking of fingerprints is a much more sensible, speedy and comfortable way to ensure that we have a proper record of who an individual is and to connect him with a particular time of entry and to discover with whom he entered than the lengthy inquisitorial questionnaires for trying to establish names and relationships, especially of a group of tired asylum seekers who have arrived at Heathrow late at night.
  I understand the objection to fingerprinting, but there is no objection when it is common practice for every asylum seeker to be fingerprinted. The objection is emotional—although understandably so—rather than realistic and practical.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

  HOUSING
  Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 3, leave out from 'and' to end of line 4 and insert 'informs the housing authority dealing with his application—'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments:
  No. 22, in page 3, leave out line 19 and insert—
  '(a) are informed by the applicant that he is an asylum-seeker, but'.
  No. 13, in page 3, line 31, after 'accommodation', insert
  'and his circumstances were the same as when the original application was made;'.
  No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end add—
  '(9) For the purposes of subsection (l)(b) above "available"—

  (a) shall only include accommodation occupied at the time an application is made; and

  (b) accommodation currently occupied shall not qualify as being "available" unless it is available for more than 28 days.'.

  No. 14, in page 4, line 23, at end add—
  '(9) For the purposes of this section accommodation "however temporary" shall not include accommodation at present occupied where an applicant under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 is threatened with homelessness within 28 days from the date of his application.'.
  No. 23, in schedule 1, page 8, line 5, leave out from 'made' to 'They' and insert
  'are informed by the applicant that he is an asylum-seeker'.
  No. 24, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'or is not'.
  No. 17, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert
  'which the applicant receives notification under section 64 of the Housing Act 1985.'.
  No. 18, in page 9, line 29, after 'requested', insert 'in
  writing'.
  No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first 'an' and insert 'a housing'.
  No. 20, in page 9, line 38, after Inform', insert 'both'.
  Mr. Fraser: This is a large group of amendments and the proposals are not all the same, so I shall break down the group.
  Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 would remove from local authorities any duty to make inquiries about whether someone was a seeker of political asylum. Of course, if a local authority in the course of its ordinary homelessness inquiries becomes aware that a person is seeking political asylum, and if the facts behind his

  253
  application for that asylum—that is the circumstances under which he gave up his previous home and in which he now claims to be homeless—are similar to those made in a claim for political asylum, his application for asylum becomes relevant. However, we think that such a duty is unhealthy and we know that the local authorities do not want such a task, which is effectively a duty to ask to see people's passports and to inquire about the immigration status of those asking for housing, to be placed on the housing list or for accommodation for the homeless.
  There are several reasons for our approach. One is that local authorities already feel that they are overburdened with administrative problems and they are not asking for—indeed, they are resisting—these proposals. Another reason is that, once a duty has been placed on a local authority to inquire about the immigration status of an applicant, one creates distrust and bad feeling among those who will be resident in the neighbourhood, often for many years. We all know from our constituency experience that some people find it offensive to be questioned about their immigration status, especially when they were born and bred in this country, but, because of the colour of their skin or the pronunciation of their name, inquiries about their problems begin with questions about their status as immigrants rather than with the merits of their application for housing. We believe that such matters should be decided on the merits of the housing applications; that is when inquiries should begin. Investigations should not commence with examination of passports and inquiries about immigration status.
  Once the facts have come to the attention of the local authorities it is up to them to take decisions about how to cope with housing requirements. Some local authorities will be so hard pressed to cope with homelessness that they may well feel that they cannot assist political asylum seekers whose claims have not yet been decided. However, some local authorities have a surplus of accommodation and may find—particularly if they have empty properties—that it is cheaper to deal with applications for temporary shelter by placing claimants in permanent accommodation as that will provide a rental income. That will prove cheaper than if authorities are forced to place applicants in temporary accommodation, as the Bill seems to do. Therefore, the measure should be resisted as it is the merits of housing applications that should be considered, not the technicalities of political asylum applications.
  8.30 pm
  Amendment No. 13 provides that, if the Home Office grants political asylum, the applicant's priority for housing relates back to when the application was first made. Under the Bill, someone could make an application to be treated as a homeless person and the application might be put on ice until the claim for political asylum status was determined. Once that has happened, as I interpret the Bill, consideration of the application will have to start again. Our amendment makes it clear that the priority of the application must relate to when the application for housing was first made, not when the Home Office or any other adjudicator made a decision about the political asylum application on appeal.
  Amendment Nos. 15 and 14 deal with temporary accommodation. The view, not just of Opposition Committee Members, but of almost every social housing
  254
  agency, is that the way that the Bill disqualifies an application from consideration by a local authority on temporary accommodation grounds is disgraceful. It is difficult to understand how the Government could have included words in the Bill that mean that a political asylum claimant is disqualified from receiving assistance from a local authority if he or she is in housing, however temporarily. Many people have commented on the fact that, if claimants have obtained accommodation in a church hall or are sleeping in a hall, or on a settee in an overcrowded flat, they will be disqualified from consideration by the local authority because they are deemed to be in temporary accommodation. That is disgraceful, and such proposals should be removed from the Bill.
  Therefore, amendment No. 15 seeks to modify that obnoxious provision and would allow the political asylum applicant at least to qualify for temporary housing from the local authority when the accommodation that they are currently using is so insecure that it could disappear within 28 days of the application being made. Surely that minimum requirement should be built into the Bill. Amendment No. 14 has a similar affect to amendment No. 15.
  We tabled amendment No. 17 because we believe that there is no need to mix landlord and tenant law with immigration law, which is exactly what the Bill does. It states that a person cannot have a secured or assured tenancy within a specified period of an application for political asylum.
  Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are comparatively minor drafting amendments. As the Bill stands, notices to applicants for political asylum do not have to be given in writing, and we propose to insert the word "writing".
  Amendment No. 19 corrects what we believe to be a drafting error. While most of this part of the Bill refers to a housing authority, the word "housing" has been dropped in one place. At the heart of the amendments lies the proposition that, if someone is in need of housing, a hard-pressed local authority will not generally be able initially to meet that need with permanent accommodation. The local authority may take up to one year to decide whether the applicant qualifies for priority housing under homelessness legislation. That one-year period should be roughly the same as the time within which the Home Office—if it is to act efficiently—decides on the political asylum application. There should be no conflict between the time scale of the Home Office and that of the local authority.
  However, if the Home Office spends—as it currently does—year after year considering applications for political asylum, and if we wish to act as a civilised country, we should not abandon a claim for accommodation for so long, which is what the Bill would do. Our proposals seek to cure that problem.
  It is not only the Opposition who have criticised the Bill. We recently received a brief from the National Federation of Housing Associations which provided an adequate answer to the argument made by the Minister in Committee that one purpose of the legislation was to stop political asylum claimants exercising the right to buy. As the Minister will know, those in assured tenancies have no right to buy. In other cases, secured tenants have to reside in their accommodation for at least two years before they can exercise that right. Preventing claimants from exercising such a right seems a thin reason for justifying the Bill's provisions.

  255
  Housing associations and, I am sure, local authorities are reluctant to be forced into terminating tenancies and evicting people who have had applications for political asylum turned down. If applications are refused, applicants will eventually be required to leave the country. That matter should properly be left to immigration law; it should not constitute part of housing law.
  I hope that the Minister will realise the anxiety that the provisions have caused, not just to applicants but to those who administer social housing and council housing. I hope that, even at this late stage, the thought that lies behind the amendments, if not the amendments, will be accepted.
  Mr. Boateng: I support this group of amendments. Central to the concept of asylum is the notion of shelter, sanctuary and refuge. We cannot hope to fulfil the spirit and letter of international conventions on refugees unless we, as a receiving nation for refugees, accept responsibility for their shelter. That is a basic requirement, not only of international law, but of common humanity.
  The amendments seek to mitigate clause 3, which strikes at the notion of giving shelter and respite to those driven from their homes by political upheaval. It does so in the most obnoxious way. It is discriminatory and we have yet to hear any convincing response from Conservative Members, the Department of the Environment or the Home Office to the charge laid at their doors by the Commission for Racial Equality that the clause is discriminatory in law.
  Also—this is important—the clause seeks to confuse the role of housing authorities and the role of those with responsibility properly to regulate immigration in this country. It gives housing officers an invidious role and means that hard-pressed local authorities which are already struggling with a range of problems have to take on responsibility for an aspect of internal immigration control. That is not good enough.
  It is offensive also because it puts in an intolerable position those organisations in our society that seek to meet the needs of refugees. Let me give a practical example of how the proposed law would undermine the work of the many voluntary organisations that are concerned with the refugee problem. Some time ago my own church—the Methodist church in Harlesden—took on responsibility for a number of Kurdish families who were in a crisis. The families had arrived recently and dreaded homelessness. Harlesden Methodist church is not rich, and it is in a deprived area of London, yet it took on responsibility for those Kurds.
  What will happen when people housed in Church premises or temporarily in the homes of local church people apply to a local authority? Under this legislation as drafted, they will fall foul of the law. It is worth looking in detail at the wording of clause 3, under which such people cannot be deemed to be homeless because accommodation, however temporary, is available to them.
  I should like the Minister to be able to tell me that my interpretation of clause 3 is wrong, that refugees such as those that the Harlesden Methodist church could not possibly house indefinitely would not, under this legislation, lose their right to local authority housing. The view that I am expressing is that not just of the Opposition but also of the Housing Law Practitioners' Association, the Law Society and the Children's Legal Centre—professional bodies that deal with housing issues day in and day out. Their reading of the legislation as drafted is
  256
  that such persons would lose the right to local authority housing. In the sort of society that we hold this one to be, that cannot be right.
  There is a question that this House will have to address in all seriousness: in those circumstances, what is the moral distinction between our treatment of Kurdish refugees—this being a relatively prosperous, secure and stable society—and the Turkish Government's treatment of the Kurds whom they allow to rot on their mountainsides? It is quite clear that there is a distinction in terms of scale, but what is the moral distinction? We could do better, and we ought to do better. All that these amendments seek to achieve is a situation in which applicants for refugee status are treated in the same way as all other applicants for housing. That is all that is asked. We are not asking that such people be given special treatment or any advantage.
  What is particularly offensive about this clause in an abhorrent piece of legislation is that it is so blatantly discriminatory, so blatantly unequal. It seeks to achieve a purpose of which we ought to be ashamed. It seeks to make life that much more unpleasant for refugees in this country. It seeks to make life that much more intolerable for them as a group, presumably for the purpose—and it is a squalid and shameful purpose—of deterring people from fleeing to this country. That is the only interpretation that any objective reader can put on this legislation, and it is one that, for the sake of this House and of the nation, we must address.
  Over many years, this country has established a tradition of receiving refugees, and, in general, we do not have much to apologise for. The tradition has been a bit battered and skimping of late, but it is still markedly better than that of many other countries. Even at this late stage, we must seek to avoid undermining it as fundamentally as this legislation would do. By the blanket way in which, in terms of housing, it treats applicants for refugee status, it puts us in danger of breaching our international treaty obligations under article 19(4)(c) of the Council of Europe social charter and of convention No. 97 of the International Labour Organisation. The Bill would put us in danger of breaching those provisions of international law.
  Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend does not exaggerate at all. In Committee, we gained the impression that, as a result of these amendments, the Government will be forced to denounce those conventions.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Boateng: The situation is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
  Mr. Mike Watson: Shame.
  Mr. Boateng: I agree with my hon. Friend, to whose contribution we look forward—it is a shame. The British Government's representatives in the Council of Europe, the International Labour Organisation and the other bodies that have been mentioned are being put in a position that no representative of this country ought to be put in. This is against the letter of international law, but, above all, it is against the spirit that we in this House ought to cherish.
  The Government say that asylum ought to be about shelter, about respite, but this obnoxious clause undermines that whole concept, and we should reject it by adopting these amendments. The Government can be sure

  257
  that, if it is not rejected here and now, we shall return to the matter in the aftermath of the general election, and that the provisions will then be rejected resoundingly.
  Mr. Watson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), in his typically eloquent and forceful manner, has said, this is an obnoxious piece of legislation. Particularly obnoxious is clause 3, to which these amendments relate. The introduction of this provision marks the first occasion since the introduction of legislation on homelessness on which a particular group of people has been singled out for the application of a lower level of rights than is enjoyed by anyone else in the country. It treats all asylum seekers as a guilty group. It requires them to prove their innocence before they can have a roof over their heads.
  The same thing applies to the regulations that accompany the Bill. They too treat these people as guilty by providing that, immediately on entry to the country, they may, against their will, be held in a detention centre and fingerprinted. To my mind, the Minister has not allayed our misgivings about fingerprinting. I wish to underline the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South.
  Housing should have no place in the Bill. There is no need for clause 3. People awaiting a decision on whether they are to be classified as genuine asylum seekers should enjoy the same rights as anyone without a roof over his head who presents himself to a local authority as homeless.
  A whole raft of organisations have made just that point to the Home Secretary, but apparently to no avail. I am talking about a group of highly respected organisations—Shelter, the Shelter Housing Aid Committee, the London Housing Aid Group, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Law Society, the National Federation of Housing Associations, the British Refugee Council, and so on. Those organisations are experienced campaigners in such matters and at looking after people who find themselves in the near-impossible position of not having a home, yet their opinions have been ignored, as have those of the Commission for Racial Equality, which has stated unequivocally that it believes clause 3 to be racially discriminatory and
  "in direct conflict with all existing statutory guidance on the homeless and race relations legislation."
  Coming from a Government-funded body, that is a serious charge, but it has been quite simply denied by the Government with the brush of a hand. The Government's position has not been explained or defended. No one is convinced. The Government need not think that they are off the hook. If the Bill becomes law, a number of organisations—not least the Commission for Racial Equality—will continue to do their job and expose its pernicious nature.
  A thinly disguised vein of racism runs right through the Bill. It is a bit like a stick of Blackpool rock in that respect. Throughout the Bill, interspersed with apparently reasonable propositions are entirely unreasonable and racially motivated proposals. In the case of clause 3, the racial aspect is not even thinly disguised.
  Throughout the Bill, the Government's assumption is that most, if not all, asylum seekers are really economic refugees—people with little to fear, who simply want to find a better standard of living in this country than exists
  258
  in their own. For generations, many of my fellow Scots have chosen to emigrate to Canada, Australia or New Zealand in search of a better standard of living. The Government tend to view asylum seekers in similar terms, but the parallel is a fallacy.
  If any proof were needed, the Government's own figures assist in demolishing the argument. Since 1980, 83 per cent. of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom have come from nine countries—Ethiopia, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Poland, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Uganda. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that all those countries have a recent history of political oppression or civil war. That is no coincidence, and it renders it even less likely—if it was ever likely—that people from those countries simply fancy a better standard of living and so present themselves on our doorstep.
  That fallacy is undermined again by a Home Office paper produced in June 1990, listing those countries or territorial entities whose nationals or citizens need visas for the United Kingdom. Of a total of 77 countries, only seven are countries where the population is predominantly white. They are Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. Since the list was issued, Uganda and Jamaica have been added. The import of that is perfectly clear. Even if the Government could convince us that the intent of that list published by the Home Office was not racist—I maintain that they have failed to do so—they cannot escape culpability, because the effect of the legislation is racist. The same is true of clause 3 of the present Bill.
  The amendment would rid the Bill of what I believe to be a major block, and would at the same time ensure that parity of housing treatment was afforded to asylum seekers. There is no reason why they should not enjoy that right. The Government should accept the amendments outlined in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), first, to ensure that the current situation under the homelessness legislation—whereby applications from asylum seekers and other homeless applicants are treated equally—was maintained. That has been the position until now, and there is no reason why it should not continue to be the position.
  That should apply even before the Home Office decision on refugee status has been made. When asylum seekers have crossed that hurdle, they find another immediately facing them. They continue to face discrimination, being required to wait 12 months before enjoying a secure assured tenancy in the way that other homeless applicants do when they are granted accommodation. Surely that cannot be justified, and the Under-Secretary should have the good sense and good grace to admit it when he answers the debate.
  Finally, local authorities should have the freedom to assess homeless applicants on the basis of housing need alone. That is the thrust of the legislation introduced as a result of great need throughout the country. Under the Bill as drafted, however, housing authorities will be forced to make the decision on the basis of having sought clearance from the Home Office on the status of the claimant. Surely, unless the claimant actually chooses to disclose the fact that he is seeking asylum, there is absolutely no need for that information to be passed to the housing authority attempting to house that person.
  If the Government fail to accept the amendments, they will continue to stand accused, and rightly so, of introducing a Bill which, at best, is discriminatory and, at

  259
  worst, racist. I repeat that clause 3 is completely unnecessary and will not even assist in achieving what the Government claim to intend. The amendments represent an attempt to rid the Bill of some of its most pernicious provisions. If the Under-Secretary refuses to accept them, he will be sending a clear and, I say, shameful message to the rest of the world about the status of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Corbyn: I fully endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Having sat through much discussion of the matter in Committee, I think that this is a shabby and nasty clause. If the homeless persons legislation can be altered in this underhand manner, what will happen next? If the Bill goes through in its present form and asylum seekers are no longer entitled to permanent housing, it will overturn the principle of the homeless persons legislation, dating from 1977, which was the principle of universal access to housing for those in housing need. The Bill will defeat and weaken that principle. What might the next stage be? I do not know what goes on in the minds of those who draft Bills such as this, which further restrict the right to public sector housing.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, when asylum seekers arrive, they are admitted and their case is then processed. I know from experience that processing can take several years. Some of the cases with which I am dealing have been with the Home Office for many years—five years or more—yet clause 3 provides that asylum seekers can be housed only in temporary accommodation by local authorities. In my local authority area, if they are lucky, "temporary housing" means a property that the council has leased, usually for six months to a year at a time, so each six months to a year that family would have to move. I said, "if they are lucky" because that tends to involve a fairly reasonable standard of accommodation. If they are unlucky, it means hostel accommodation or bed and breakfast.
  Who exactly is the Bill designed to punish? Has the Minister ever seen children growing up in bed-and-breakfast hotels? Has he seen the signs of depression among parents trying to keep a family together in a bed-and-breakfast room, looking every day at the same washstand, wondering whether breakfast would be any different that day from any other day, the lack of play space, the family rows that develop, and the enormous cost as well? The clause does not actually save any money—it costs a great deal more to local authorities. One wonders what the motive behind the Bill is, other than, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the punishment of asylum seekers who wish to obtain housing, having been admitted into this country.
  In Committee, there was a fairly unusual set of circumstances in which hon. Members raised points of order about the way in which the clause contravened the Race Relations Act 1976. When it was pointed out that it appeared to be in contravention and that the Commission for Racial Equality, a statutory body, issued a statement to that effect, Law Officers were eventually unwillingly brought along to the Committee and forced to try to defend the position. They did not make a very good job of it. The CRE was established under the Race Relations Act 1976 specifically to attack discrimination in this country, be it by an employer who refuses to employ black people
  260
  or an institution that operates policies that systematically discriminate against a certain group of people. The Government are now adopting a policy in law which systematically discriminates against those who are seeking political asylum. I shall not repeat the facts that were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central in his excellent contribution, but he pointed out where most asylum seekers come from.
  9 pm
  What is to be the future relationship between local authorities, the Home Office and the immigration service? Were people appointed to work in local authority housing departments to be agents on which the Home Office could rely? A housing officer in a local authority, when interviewing a housing applicant, must ask whether he or she is an asylum seeker. A housing officer will not know, when a family walks through a door, whether they are asylum seekers. They will be seen as a family. Any black family who seek assistance from the local authority housing department will be asked to produce a passport or a form of identity so that a check can be made within the Home Office. There will be a system of passport checks or identity checks for non-white applicants or foreign applicants. That is how it will work. What does the Minister think that that will do to the relationship between local authority housing departments and those who require housing?
  Local authority associations have pointed out the increased costs that the Bill puts on them. For authorities that actually have a surplus of or ready access to permanent housing, it is much more expensive to keep families in temporary accommodation than in permanent accommodation. But there is a moral case as well. The morality behind the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was that society had a moral obligation to ensure that everyone in need—for example, those with dependent children, the elderly, or those at some risk—had a right to be housed. That Act represented an important step forward. This legislation, particularly coming from the Government's hand, is the start of the erosion of that principle.
  Does the Minister honestly think that that is a fair, moral and just way of administering a housing policy or treating people who have come here to seek political asylum? I invite him to meet asylum applicants. They are not living very well; they fear being returned, and they are concerned about what has happened to their families. I deal with many asylum applicants. One sees the fear on the faces of those people. They know that their families are at risk in Somalia, Zaire, Uganda or wherever they have attempted to come from. They know that they may never see them again—obviously, they hope that they will. They know that they will be treated as second-class citizens. They receive 90 per cent. of income support instead of 100 per cent., again for no good reason other than as a form of punishment, and temporary housing, again for no good reason other than as a form of punishment.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South and I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will be prepared to reconsider, in the light of all the representations, the strength of feeling and the declaration by the Commission for Racial Equality that clause 3 is wholly wrong, wholly misguided, immoral, and should be withdrawn.
  Sir Timothy Raison: I do not entirely agree with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but I am rather puzzled by one feature of this clause, and that is the statement in lines 25 and 26 on page 3. I do not understand why it states:
  "and, accordingly, so long as he remains an asylum-seeker, any need of his for accommodation shall be regarded as temporary only."
  I do not understand why it is not enough simply to stop after the words
  "shall not continue after he ceases to be an asylum-seeker".
  Is there any particular point in introducing at this stage the notion of "temporary" and in saying "shall" be regarded as temporary only instead of "may" be regarded? I should like to know why these two lines appear in the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I am glad to have the chance to reply to the debate. I think that it would be helpful if I took the opportunity, since the housing provisions were scarcely touched on in the Second Reading debate, to explore, before getting into the detail of the amendments, some of the principles behind the provisions in clause 3 and schedule 1 to the Bill.
  The proposals modify the duties on local authorities under the homelessness legislation—part III of the Housing Act 1985—in relation to asylum seekers. The effect of the measures is to be fairer to a group of people who have not been referred to in this debate at all, that is, the people who are on the local authority waiting lists, a group of people about whom I am sufficiently concerned to see what effect this Bill has on them, although no one else who has spoken in the debate——
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Mr. Yeo: If I may develop the point a little more, I will give way in a moment.
  It is important that we consider how the Bill affects those people whose right to permanent residence in this country is not in question and some of whom may have a long-standing connection with the area of the local authority on whose waiting list they remain. The effect of these measures will be to treat those people more fairly than they have been treated up to now, while continuing to give the protection that we all agree should be given to asylum seekers in genuine need.
  Mr. Boateng: The Minister really ought not to take those who have contributed to the debate to task for neglecting the concerns of the people they represent in relation to the bloated and inflated housing lists and the housing deprivation in the areas that we represent. These are people that we see day in and day out. They are people about whom we write to his Department week in and week out. We are very concerned about them.
  If he is concerned to do them justice, the Minister would do well to look at the practices of his own Department when it comes to grant-funding for local authority housing. He would do well to look at the disgrace of empty properties which his Department does nothing whatever to ameliorate before suggesting that we are not concerned about the people we represent. We are concerned about them; but, like them, we are also concerned about the fairness and equity of legislation that comes to the House—and the Minister should be concerned about that too.
  Mr. Yeo: That intervention went on longer than I have been allowed to speak so far, but as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has made reference to empty properties perhaps I may point out that in his borough, while it was under Labour control, there were no fewer than 937 empty properties on 1 April last year; 5 per cent. of the housing stock run by Brent council was empty.
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Mr. Yeo: I am going to have some say in this debate.
  Brent council had more uncollected rent than any other local authority in the whole of England and Wales—this was during the last year that it was under Labour control. I have no doubt that if it remains under Tory control long enough the figures will improve—they could hardly get worse. Forty-four per cent. of the rent—£15 million—was uncollected. So we need not take lessons from the hon. Member for Brent, South when we see what his Labour colleagues on that council did when in charge of the housing resources there.
  I do not yield to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) one iota in my anxiety to get people out of unsatisfactory temporary accommodation, particularly bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I share his concern. It is precisely because I do that I find it deplorable that we have so many Labour-controlled local authorities with huge numbers of empty properties. There are more local authority properties in this country that have been empty for more than 12 months than there are families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  One way of helping to limit the extent to which people are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is to ensure that those who have access to permanent accommodation in this country are people who have also established a permanent right to remain here.
  Under the current homelessness legislation asylum seekers can qualify for permanent housing from a local authority if they meet the same tests as anyone else—that is if they are unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness and in priority need. In general, this means families with children, pregnant women or those vulnerable for some other reason. In my view, and in the view of many other people, it is illogical that someone whose right to remain in the country permanently is still under question and has not been established can secure permanent accommodation in that way.
  Current estimates are that up to 5,000 asylum-seeker families are likely to qualify for housing help under the homelessness legislation in this year alone. However, the absolute numbers, while disturbing, are not the overriding problem. The real problem is that those asylum seekers impose a disproportionate burden on certain local authorities, particularly in London, because asylum seekers tend to concentrate either at the point of arrival or in areas where there is a refugee community already established. Some local authorities are having to accept a duty to secure housing for 250 or more asylum-seeker households a year. That exacerbates existing housing pressures and means that local people on waiting lists will have an even longer wait for permanent housing.
  Under our measures we propose two extra tests for asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum applications to be decided. First, do they have reasonable

  263
  accommodation at the moment, even if it is only temporary? Secondly, is there any other accommodation they could reasonably go to?
  The Bill provides that, if they meet all these tests, the local authority has to provide only temporary accommodation until the asylum application is decided. It will be up to the local authority to decide how to fulfil its duty to provide temporary accommodation, which might be a short-term tenancy in its permanent stock.
  I should like to correct a recurring misconception that has been repeated this evening by the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Islington, North—that requiring an authority to provide only temporary accommodation to an asylum seeker does not mean that that asylum seeker must be placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As a matter of fact, it does not mean even that the local authority has to put such a person in temporary accommodation. The local authority has discretion, which it can use, to put that person in permanent accommodation if it so wishes. If it desires—
  Sir Timothy Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again because this is exactly the point that I have been trying to raise. I repeat that lines 25 and 26 of clause 3 state:
  "accordingly, so long as he remains an asylum-seeker, any need of his for accommodation shall be regarded as temporary only."
  I thought that my hon. Friend said that the local authority could provide temporary accommodation, or whatever form of accommodation it wanted; but that is not what the Bill says.
  Mr. Yeo: I would have come to my right hon. Friend's point in due course but, as he has raised it now, I shall deal with it now. The lines to which he has referred are intended to make it clear that by providing accommodation on a temporary basis the local authority will, indeed, be fulfilling its statutory duty to the asylum seeker, but the Bill does not compel the local authority to provide only temporary accommodation. If it wishes, it can use its discretion to do more than that and to offer permanent accommodation. We are simply saying that, to satisfy its statutory responsibility, it will be sufficient for the local authority to offer only temporary accommodation to the asylum seeker.
  Sir Timothy Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but I urge him to look again at those words because they do not seem to match what he has been saying. I still think that the paragraph could have ended at the beginning of line 25 with the word "seeker". I still cannot see the point of the remaining words.
  Mr. Yeo: I know that my right hon. Friend has a close interest in housing and remember that he participated in the last housing debate in which I spoke. I shall certainly look again at the wording, but I am quite clear about our intentions. If our intentions are satisfied by the wording as it stands, we would not wish to alter it. The intention is to make it clear to a local authority that it has no duty further than the provision of temporary accommodation to an applicant for housing who is an asylum seeker. It has discretion to go further than that, but no duty to do so. If the wording to which my right hon. Friend has referred does not achieve that, I will of course look at it again.
  Mr. Fraser: Surely the reluctance to allow the local authority discretion is also reflected in paragraph 5 of schedule 1, which says that the accommodation, if the local authority chooses to provide it, cannot be secure for within one year of offering the accommodation. Does that not reinforce the point made by the right hon. Gentleman?
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Yeo: No. The answer is the same. The Bill is designed to make clear the local authority's statutory obligation. It is, as I have said, to provide temporary accommodation. If the local authority, in its own discretion, chooses to go further than that, it will be free to do so. This is just setting out what the minimum provision by the local authority has to be in order to satisfy its statutory responsibilities.
  I return to the misconception, which was repeated by the hon. Members for Norwood and for Islington, North, that temporary accommodation means bed and breakfast. I was very glad to have the acknowledgement of several Opposition Members that there are local authorities with a surplus of accommodation; they do not always acknowledge that quite so readily. Unfortunately, in practice, not many of the areas with large numbers of asylum seekers coincide with areas where there are surpluses. Nevertheless, it is nice to have the recognition that they sometimes do. Those local authorities are perfectly free to allocate their housing, which would be an ordinary council house or flat, to an asylum seeker on a temporary tenancy. So there is no question of an authority which has a surplus in its own stock having to send asylum seeker applicants to bed-and-breakfast accommodation; it will of course use the stock that is available to it.
  That is a misconception that we heard in the Standing Committee and have heard again this evening, and I am glad to have an opportunity to make it clear that a local authority will fulfil its duty by providing accommodation which could be a short-term tenancy in its permanent stock. The local authority could also arrange a tenancy in the private sector. It could be in a hostel, or, in those areas where no alternative could be found, it could be in bed and breakfast. But it does not have to be if there are alternatives, and I believe that all hon. Members will agree that it is preferable to avoid bed-and-breakfast accommodation if possible.
  If asylum seekers are subsequently recognised as refugees or otherwise granted leave to remain in the country, they will have the same rights under the homelessness legislation as anyone else. If they are refused leave to remain in the country, they will not have rights under that legislation.
  Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek to deny the housing authority the opportunity to inquire of an applicant under the homelessness legislation whether he is an asylum seeker and say that instead it should rely on the asylum seeker to volunteer the information.
  Given that under the proposals in this legislation the local authority will have a different duty under the homelessness legislation to an applicant who is an asylum seeker as compared with any other applicant, it is imperative that a housing authority, in order to carry out its duty, be able to establish whether an applicant is an asylum seeker. It would be unreasonable not to allow an authority to ask an applicant whether he was an asylum seeker. The lack of this ability might result in an asylum

  265
  seeker who had not revealed his status to the local authority being provided with permanent accommodation to which he was not entitled. The hon. Member for Norwood expressed great concern about the fact that these decisions would be made on the merits of housing issues. Let me say again that one of the factors which determine the merits of a housing application will be whether the applicant is an asylum seeker.
  The Bill will make it simple for the authority to establish whether an applicant is an asylum seeker by applying to the Home Office for information, which the Home Office will have a duty to supply. This will assist authorities in establishing the facts. Perhaps I had better deal with the confidentiality point when we discuss how the information will be obtained and whether it is in writing or otherwise. But we have already touched in Committee on the safeguards which we intend to put in place to ensure confidentiality of information.
  Amendment No. 24 illustrates the absurdity of the proposals on identifying asylum seekers. Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides that anyone who gives false information, or withholds information about whether a homelessness applicant is an asylum seeker, with the intention of misleading the authority is committing an offence. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which an offence is created to a case where the applicant, or indeed any other person, tells the authority that the applicant is an asylum seeker when he or she is not.
  It would no longer be an offence for the homeless applicant to deny that he or she was an asylum seeker when that was the case. That is clearly absurd. It is hard to think of any circumstances in which an applicant for help under the homelessness legislation would say that he was an asylum seeker when he was not. It is equally absurd that an asylum seeker should be able to lie about his status with no fear of prosecution.
  Amendment No. 13 seeks to make ineffective our proposal that the local authority should have the opportunity to reconsider a homelessness application when the asylum seeker is granted leave to remain in this country.
  The principle behind clause 3 is that it is reasonable to distinguish under the homelessness legislation between an asylum seeker who has only a temporary right to remain in the country and someone who has a right to live here permanently. Under our proposals an asylum seeker who is homeless and in priority need will have a right only to temporary accommodation until the asylum application is determined. Subsection (4) provides that in the case of a successful asylum seeker a new application under the homelessness legislation is deemed to have been made immediately before the asylum case was determined. That gives the local authority the opportunity to consider whether the former asylum seeker is still in priority need and thereby qualifies for help under the homelessness legislation.
  Mr. Boateng: What would happen in a case in which, in the interim between making the application and its successful adjudication, a woman who had had a child and therefore qualified for housing lost that child and became a single person? On the deemed reapplication, would that
  266
  woman therefore lose her priority and, in addition to losing her child, lose her home? If not, why not, given the wording of the legislation?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the circumstances in which the applicant was at the time of the deemed reapplication would be those which determined whether he or she still qualified as being in priority need, not the circumstances which obtained at the time of the application for asylum. If circumstances had changed, it is possible that someone who was in priority need at the time of making the application for asylum might no longer be in priority need by the time the application had been granted or the person had obtained exceptional leave to remain. It is for exactly that reason that the provision is included.
  It is because we are concerned, as the hon. Member for Norwood said he was, with the merits of the housing case that we want to make sure that when someone's asylum application has been determined and has been successful we have another look at the circumstances. That seems only sensible and proper. I think that the majority of local authorities would like to have an opportunity to look at the up-to-date position.
  Mr. Boateng: Does not the case which I have outlined give the Minister some concern? It is by no means hypothetical; I have constituency cases of women who have come to this country as refugees from Somalia and who have subsequently lost children. Such women suffer the trauma of being a refugee, followed by the trauma of loss of child, followed by the trauma of enforced loss of accommodation. In those circumstances, it is not as if the local authority would have discretion. The duty to house would have ended. In those circumstances, the woman would be dispossessed. Does not that give the Minister cause for concern?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts. The authority would still have discretion. An authority is at liberty to house people whether they are in priority need or not. It is merely that the duty of the authority to do so would have ended, but the authority would retain the discretion to continue to provide housing. Nothing in the Bill affects that discretion. The Bill merely removes any duty to house an asylum seeker who is not in priority need, and it removes the duty to provide permanent accommodation for someone while that person is an asylum seeker. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong because it is possible for someone still to be in priority need even if there are no dependent children, depending on the position of stress in which the individual finds himself. That is already part of the homelessness legislation.
  On both grounds there could be circumstances in which a woman who had lost a child—depending on the precise facts—could still be classified as being in priority need. Even if that were not so, the local authority would still retain discretion, if it chose to use it, to provide housing. The logic of the deemed reapplication is overwhelming.
  The fact remains also that a successful asylum seeker who remains in priority need has nothing to fear from the process of a deemed reapplication being made at the time when the status of the asylum seeker in this country has been determined.
  Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 raise two distinct issues that we spent some time debating in Committee. The first issue is whether the House considers it reasonable that a

  267
  local authority should be able to take into account, in deciding whether an asylum seeker is homeless, not only whether he or she is currently occupying reasonable accommodation but whether there is some alternative accommodation—perhaps with family or friends—to which he or she might reasonably go before turning to the local authority.
  I believe that the majority of hon. Members agree with that entirely reasonable proposition. The majority of asylum seekers—three out of four—are already in this country at the time of making their application. In all probability, therefore, they will have established local contacts that are sufficient to help them find alternative accommodation. We are not saying that an asylum seeker who arrives at Heathrow will be required by the local authority to seek alternative accommodation, regardless of expense or practicality. He or she will not have to search for accommodation across the country. The test is governed by what is reasonable. Local authorities will have discretion, which they are already used to applying in relation to the homelessness legislation. Ultimately it would be a matter for the courts to decide.
  The second issue that is raised by amendments Nos. 14 and 15 is when an asylum seeker might be regarded as threatened with homelessness. As the hon. Member for Norwood said, this is an issue about which various outside bodies have expressed concern.
  I shall outline how the threatened-with-homelessness provisions currently apply in the homelessness legislation and how they will apply to asylum seekers under the proposals in the Bill. Under the 1985 legislation, a person is threatened with homelessness if he or she is likely to become homeless within 28 days. In that event, the local authority is obliged to consider the homelessness application in the usual way. If it is satisfied that the applicant is likely to become homeless unintentionally and is in a priority need group, it must take reasonable steps to ensure that that accommodation does not cease to be available for his or her occupation. That could mean assisting the applicant in such a way that he can stay on where he is, or it could mean that once the person has become homeless at the end of the period, there is alternative accommodation available for his occupation.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South raised the case of the Kurdish refugees who were housed by the Harlesden Methodists. The position is clear. If the period available to the refugees were less than 28 days, they could establish that they were in priority need. Existing legislation does not mean—this is what Opposition Members are seeking to achieve for asylum seekers by means of the amendments—that the housing authority has a duty to secure alternative accommodation the moment that the threat of homelessness within 28 days has been identified. It would be a waste of resources to adopt that approach if accommodation were still available for another four weeks. It is more sensible for a local authority to take on the responsibility at the end of the period that is currently available.
  In Committee, I undertook to check that the provisions of the 1985 Act applying to people threatened with homelessness apply equally to asylum seekers under the Bill's proposals. They do nothing to affect the continuing application of the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act that are not explicitly modified by our new proposals.
  268
  Hon. Members expressed concern on behalf of voluntary bodies about our proposals, but the Bill does not present any disincentive to voluntary organisations to continue making provisions.
  9.30 pm
  Amendment No. 17 seeks to alter the provisions in the Bill relating to security of tenure. The Bill provides that, in the case of an asylum seeker, the right to a secure local authority tenancy or a housing authority or private assured tenancy does not arise until 12 months after notification to the landlord by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the applicant has ceased to be an asylum seeker—though the landlord's discretion remains. As I said before, it is illogical that someone should be able to obtain a secure or assured tenancy until their right to remain in this country has been permanently established.
  Amendments Nos. 18, 19, and 20 deal with safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of information about an asylum seeker, which was debated in Committee at some length. We are of course anxious to preserve the confidentiality of information obtained from the Home Office, and I have made arrangements with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that the normal mode of communicating between the housing authority will be in writing. I am satisfied that there is no need to include that provision in the Bill. We will make administrative arrangements, but as I gain the impression from Opposition Members that they want to conclude the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I will be happy to explain them in writing.
  Amendment No. 19 seeks to clarify that the Secretary of State may pass on information about an asylum seeker only to a housing authority. I am happy to accept that amendment to ensure that the position is made clear in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 20 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State notifies both the housing authority and the applicant in writing of the outcome of the application for asylum. We believe that that is unnecessary, because paragraph 6(3) of schedule 1 already makes that clear. I therefore urge the House to accept amendment No. 19 but to reject the others.
  Mr. Fraser: As we want to make progress, I will comment only briefly on the Minister's remarks. He reads well, but the people who write for him do not write very well. When the hon. Gentleman expresses compassion about people on the housing waiting list, he should remember some of his Department's other records. The Minister represents a Department which has the worst local authority housing construction record in peacetime this century. We do not hear much from the Government about people on the waiting list except in debates such as this. The Minister represents a Department which has also increased the number of homeless by 300 per cent. since his party took office. Although the hon. Gentleman reads well, he does not learn very well.
  When the Minister says that the status of asylum seekers should be relevant to local authority consideration, he repeats the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The moment that status

  269
  becomes a prime consideration, discriminatory factors become relevant. An asylum seeker's housing application should be considered on its own merits.
  The best construction that can be put on clause 3 is that it represents a disincentive to those who seek political asylum, and the worst—judging from some of the Minister's remarks—is that it is intended to serve as a scapegoat for the Government's appalling housing record.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—
  '(5A) For the purposes of this section and that Schedule a person who makes a claim for asylum—

  (a) becomes an asylum-seeker when his claim is at any time (whether before or after the coming into force of this section) recorded by the Secretary of State as having been made, and

  (b)
  ceases to be an asylum-seeker when his claim is recorded by the Secretary of State as having been finally determined or abandoned.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

Clause 4

  CURTAILMENT OF LEAVE TO ENTER OR REMAIN
  Sir Timothy Raison: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 25, after 'person', insert
  ', other than a student on a recognised course,'.
  Clause 4 provides that when a person who already has limited leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom has his or her claim for asylum refused, the Secretary of State for the Home Department may curtail that limited leave for him or her to remain. Amendment No. 31 is designed to exempt students on recognised courses from the risk of removal until they complete their courses. Whatever may be the arguments in respect of clause 4 as a whole, there is a strong case for exempting students. My hon. Friend the Minister seemed to concede that pretty fully in Committee, when he said:
  "Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not obliged to curtail leave and there will be various cases in which he will not wish to do so, such as that of a bona fide student who has made an unsuccessful application before the end of his course because of events at home."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 December 1991; c. 156.]
  What could be clearer than that? Why should we not exempt the bona fide student?
  I have been trying to imagine a case in which a student might be able to abuse the system if my amendment were accepted. He might try to use asylum to prolong his stay, but, if his case for asylum were not accepted, he would have to leave at the end of his course, just as he would if he had not made a bid. If it were accepted, he would not have to go anyway.
  It could, I suppose, be argued that the student could delay his asylum application until nearer the end of the course, so in a sense the problem does not arise. As I understand it, however, the draft immigration rules require prompt and full disclosure of material factors. The Government seem to be saying that if someone is going to apply for asylum, he should do so sooner rather than later. In the light of that, it would surely be most unjust for a student to have to give up his studies as a result of an unsuccessful asylum application.
  No doubt my hon. Friend will point out that this is no more than a discretionary power; he will say that the key
  270
  word is "may", and that the provision will not be applied unjustly. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would apply it unjustly, as I have great respect for him and for the fairness that he exercises; the applicant, however, may not be aware of his sterling qualities. He may simply recoil at the possibility of losing his education, and feel that he cannot take the risk entailed in that. In such circumstances, a student might withhold a perfectly reasonable application for asylum—an application that would succeed. Surely it cannot be right to use the possibility of the termination of his course to deter the exercise of what is accepted as a legitimate right.
  It is, of course, possible that my amendment is not valid technically. I feel, however, that the case for my argument is overwhelming; indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that in Committee. My amendment neither should nor would help a bogus student to prolong his stay; there are other ways of dealing with that. I hope that my hon. Friend—who has handled the whole issue so sensitively—will feel able to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I support the amendment. Those of us whose constituencies contain universities know that such circumstances arise. A young person may arrive at university, intending to stay for two or three years, with no knowledge of what may happen in his country of origin. He cannot plan when to apply for asylum; that will be dictated by the situation in his country.
  Those who remember the Iran-Iraq war will recall that students from both countries found themselves in very difficult personal circumstances. I cannot imagine a case in which someone could use an application to act other than reasonably. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) pointed out, those who apply for asylum and are unsuccessful will stay only for as long as their education visas last; there is no way in which they will abuse the system.
  I hope that the amendment will be accepted—or, at least, that its spirit will be accepted, and it can be altered in another place.
  Mr. Darling: We support the amendment. Both the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), being former Ministers, speak with some authority, and I hope that they have persuaded the Minister to accept the amendment.
  We should remember that the whole point of clause 4 is to provide a disincentive: the applicant must be aware that, once asylum has been applied for, he runs the risk of having his existing leave curtailed. The intention is to discourage someone from applying for asylum. It is not just
  students who are in this difficult position. Visitors sometimes find that they are in the same position. A couple of my constituents have visitors from Croatia where the situation will change between the time that they entered the United Kingdom and the time that they are due to leave this country. The point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury about students has even more force. Events may have dramatically changed in the home country after the lapse of three or four years.
  If the Minister intends to say that we should not worry because of the Secretary of State's discretion, I ought to mention to him that if the point of clause 4 is to discourage such applications and it then becomes known that the discretion is to be used generally, it will undermine the

  271
  Government's reason for including clause 4. If there is general agreement that if a student applies for asylum he or she should be allowed to continue the course, even if the application is unsuccessful, I cannot see what harm will be done. The right hon. Gentleman dealt very well with the possible abuses that the Minister might conjure up. I look forward with interest to the ingenuity that the Minister will use to reject the amendment. What would be even better, however, would be for the Minister to tell us that if additional amendments are to be tabled in another place, this one will join them.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) made a sympathetic and persuasive case, though the different categories are dealt with in the rules rather than in the primary legislation. We do not intend routinely to use curtailment in all cases where there is extant limited leave. Discretion will be exercised, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The bona fide student who continues to meet the requirements of the rules is a good example of someone whose leave will not be curtailed. That is not the only example. The same will apply to business men, work permit holders and others.
  However, we cannot assume that all those who gained entry as students should not have their leave curtailed. Some of them may have no real intention to pursue a serious course of study and to leave this country when it is completed. A specific exemption would only encourage more dubious attempts to get into that category.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that he could not imagine that there would be no merit in any student's claim to be a student. If he had seen as many cases as I have of people who gained entry as students, but who have not attended college for many months, sometimes even years. I believe that he would modify his opinion. There are people who gained leave as a student but who are not students at present, and they have not been pursuing a course of study for a considerable period of time.
  Mr. Lester: The amendment refers to students being granted leave until they have completed their course. Therefore, one assumes that the students about whom we are talking are pursuing a course of study at a university or college.
  Mr. Lloyd: The trouble is that they do not complete the course and that they have no real intention of doing so. As soon as the authorities contact them, many of these people embark on yet another course.
  The new power is aimed primarily at those who enter as visitors and seek asylum shortly afterwards. It is right, however, to be able to consider other categories. Even though I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, I can assure him that the Secretary of State will not automatically curtail the leave of a student simply because his asylum claim has failed. If a student appeals, due to the refusal of his asylum claim, he can at the same time appeal against the curtailment of his leave as a student. His case would, however, already have been very sympathetically considered if he was in good standing with his college and if his desire to complete his studies was convincing.
  I am sorry that I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, but I hope that he has been somewhat encouraged by what I have said.
  Mr. Maclennan: I listened with care to what the Under-Secretary said, but he has not answered the case put by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison); nor has he said what mischief would arise from accepting the amendment. If his concern is with those who are claiming to be students but are not pursuing a course of study, that would negate the effect of the exclusion. They would be subject to the law if they were not students.
  The other place would be wise to return to this matter, as there is strong support for it in this House.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand what the hon. Gentleman said. However, that would mean that it would be open to the so-called student to appeal in the ordinary appellate system and there would be an opportunity for that person to remain in this country for a considerable time in the queue for the hearing of the appeal.
  Sir Timothy Raison: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  I am not persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that this would be a way of policing students who are trying to abuse the system by not pursuing their studies or are trying to stay indefinitely. I remember from my Home Office days that that problem exists and it was one with which I had to grapple. However, I do not think that this is the mechanism for dealing with it.
  I know that the House wants to get on to Third Reading and I do not want to prolong matters, but, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, this has not been fully answered. It would be desirable if the matter were pursued in the other place and I hope that it will be. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

  CARRIERS' LIABILITY FOR TRANSIT PASSENGERS
  Amendment made: No. 29, in page 6, line 30, leave out 'or any similar characteristic' and insert
  ', origin or other connection with any particular country or territory'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 9

  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 30, in page 7, line 21, leave out 'or any similar characteristic' and insert
  ', origin or other connection with any particular country or territory'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 1

  HOUSING OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first 'an' and insert 'a housing'.—[Mr. Fraser.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks at the end of the consideration of the Bill. Other business has

  273
  prevented me from playing a bigger role in the earlier proceedings. I want to place on record on behalf of my constituents my opposition to the Bill.
  I remember the first debate on the Bill, just a couple of months ago. In almost his opening sentence, the Home Secretary assured the House that there was no question of the Bill playing the numbers game. The preparation for the Bill began in the summer, when the tabloid Tory newspapers made it clear that part of their pre-electioneering was to play a racist card by supporting the introduction of this Bill. There was a spate of stories about the country being "swamped" or of there being "too many asylum seekers" and of the "scandal" of thousands of "bogus" applicants.
  On 3 November, The Sunday Times managed to combine nearly all those elements in one sentence when it said:
  "Tory MPs, particularly those with seats in the Midlands, plan to fight Labour hard on its pledge to oppose the government's legislation cracking down on immigrants seeking bogus political asylum."
  Virtually all those elements were contained in a single sentence in one article. Of course, that is not an objective appraisal.
  As anyone who has read the Committee proceedings or heard the debates in the Chamber will know, the word "bogus" is not an objective term but a purely subjective analysis which changes as do the rules and regulations, which the Government regularly tighten. People who do not come under the ambit of these rules and regulations are described as bogus.
  What have we been talking about in terms of numbers, an issue with which the Home Secretary began his contribution—45,000 or 50,000 asylum seekers last year? What is that? It is perhaps the gate at a Manchester City/Manchester United local derby football match. The reality is that only about 5 per cent. of the estimated 17.5 million refugees in the world get as far as or seek to come to Europe, and only a small fraction of those ever apply to come to the United Kingdom. Those statistics are a matter of public record, but it is hard to find them reflected in many of the newspaper articles that I mentioned, especially those in the tabloids in recent months.
  It is also a matter of public record, because the Home Office admitted it to me in a parliamentary answer some months ago, that in 20 of the past 27 years—from 1964 to 1990—there was a net outflow of people emigrating from this country. For those who wish to know, during those 27 years there was a net outflow of 786,000 people. That is a matter of public record, so there is no question of this country, in the immortal words of the former Prime Minister, being
  "swamped by people of an alien culture".
  The Bill has been designed to make asylum not easier but harder. It will be made harder because of carrier fines and the associated regulations. The speeding up of the process which is part of the Bill does not bode well for a fair hearing. The Minister will know of a case that I raised, which has occupied staff in his office in recent weeks. It involved a Sikh constituent who, if I had not intervened, would have been sent initially to Germany and possibly back to the Punjab, where his brother was killed some months ago.
  274
  I was able to raise the case because of the powers of intervention that hon. Members still have, but those powers will be side-stepped by the tightening of the procedures and by the denial of an oral hearing which the Bill will make law. If, in that case or in future cases, the so-called removal to the port of first entry is to be the norm, and if no assurances are received from the country to which the person is sent, I predict that the Bill will result in people being sent to their death.
  As Nye Bevan used to say, one does not need to look into a crystal ball if one can read the book. We know about the famous case of the Tamil seekers after refugee status—five were sent back to Sri Lanka and four were tortured. That is a matter of record. I could mention other cases, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak. Any hon. Member who has a substantial proportion of constituents with families residing in other countries could provide case after case to show that the Bill will put at risk the lives and safety of constituents' families.
  As I said, the Bill was politically aimed at the pre-election period. The newspapers that give support and succour to the Tory party played their role well, not only by softening public opinion in advance of the House's consideration of the Bill, but by poisoning workers' minds with their repeated stories of con men, of racketeering and of massive social security fraud. How those stories seemed to escalate in the weeks before the Queen's Speech when the Bill was first introduced in the House.
  We are talking about people fleeing persecution by some of the world's worst dictatorships, fleeing countries racked by civil war under repressive regimes often supported and funded by countries in the west in general, and even by this country in particular.
  I have been politically active for 20 years. The first case with which I dealt as an individual was that of refugees from Chile, who had arrived in Coventry in the early 1970s with no clothes and no furniture. My grandfather's radio, which is still playing, was given to the children of the first Chilean refugee family to get as far as Coventry in the early 1970s. Throughout that period and until today, we have received families from Africa, Asia, the Punjab, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and other countries. The Bill would make the job of hon. Members that much harder—it is designed to do so. Many Tory Members have written—not least my neighbour the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who wrote an article a few days ago in a Coventry magazine stating that it was because hon. Members were clogging up Home Office procedure with their interventions that the Bill had to be introduced.
  We know why the Bill has been introduced. It seeks to criminalise those who come to this country seeking political asylum. As "Newsnight" showed last night, several hundred of the people who get as far as these shores find that Britain's hospitality leads them to the detention centre at Harmsworth or to prison, where they languish for weeks or months.
  I make no apology for saying that the Bill legitimises and underpins the arguments of racists in this country, which, if unchecked, could lead to the horrors that have occurred in France and Germany in recent months, where people have been burnt out of hostels and there have been several attacks. Just before Christmas, a black woman in my constituency—Mrs. Morrison, who is not a refugee—was threatened with a baseball bat, her phone and television cables were cut four times and she had beans and grease thrown at her windows and dog excreta smeared on

  275
  her doormat. She fears for her own life and that of her 12-year-old son. If the Bill is enacted, the proposals that it contains will legitimise, underpin and give support to racist organisations such as the National Front and the British National party, which seek to take on to the streets the racist and neo-Nazi ideas that unfortunately gain succor from those who play the numbers game in the House or elsewhere.
  As a socialist, I believe that people who are fleeing war and persecution should be welcomed into this country as they have been so many times by past generations. Our parents and grandparents welcomed the people from Europe, eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa who were seeking to flee persecution. It should not only be Russian composers and South African athletes with friends in the Tory Cabinet who are allowed here in a matter of days: all those who flee persecution should have a right to seek and find asylum and refuge in this country.
  I hope that, when Opposition spokesmen make their wind-up speeches later, and when, as I hope, Labour form a Government in the weeks and months ahead, they will make it clear that they will not only make it easier and quicker for refugees to be granted the right to stay in this country, but withdraw support from those regimes from whom people are fleeing—such administrations should include the Governments of Sri Lanka and India as long as oppression continues in the Kashmir and Punjab—and embark on a sufficiently large programme of public works to build homes, hospitals and schools so that unemployment and other social conditions do not allow racism to breed in the cities and towns of Britain.
  There is no justification for the Bill. The Home Secretary seems to take it as conclusive proof that anyone who arrives with bogus documents is, by definition, a bogus refugee or asylum seeker. Most people fleeing a country in which there is oppression do not have time to queue up at a British embassy or high commission for the necessary paperwork. The very nature of their departure means that they often seek refuge here via a third country. The fast track proposed in the Bill will weaken or even fatally flaw the ability of such people to seek refuge in this country.
  It is a nasty little Bill, and the House should drop it into the dustbin tonight. If it is enacted, I hope that a future Labour Government will give a categorical pledge to repeal it and the earlier racist legislation on which it is built. I wish to ensure that families in my constituency and others up and down the country are united instead of divided, as they are at present. I want to ensure that those who come here to save their lives, those who have been restricted and suppressed in their own countries, are not further restricted and suppressed when they seek refuge in this country, which has traditionally been a haven for refugees and, in my opinion, should continue to be such a haven.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: The House wishes to come to a conclusion on this Bill tonight.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has just spoken with very great passion and feeling. I do not believe that what we have heard from him was the least bit simulated. He spoke with conviction, and he spoke for many people—people outside this House as well as in it—who share his abhorrence of the measure that Parliament is passing with so little scrutiny.
  Today the House is being asked to conclude its deliberations against a background of Government uncertainty about the administration of the provisions of this legislation, which is almost unparalleled and unbelievable. When the Bill was being introduced the House was advised that the prime responsibility for representing and giving advice to people seeking asylum would rest with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Today we have been told that this is not so. The whole foundation of the argument put forward by the Minister was shot from under his feet by himself. At lunch time today the Minister published amendments to the immigration rules. In doing so at such a late hour he made it impossible for the House properly to consider the amendments and to decide whether, in the whole new framework of rules, the Bill is appropriate. That is not the way in which the House should deliberate in respect of such a sensitive matter.
  We have not received from the Minister, either today or on an earlier occasion, a direct answer to the accusation of the Commission for Racial Equality that at least some of the Bill's provisions are racially discriminatory and are counter to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is a very serious matter that the chairman of this Government-appointed body, Mr. Michael Day, should make such a charge. I refer in particular to clause 4, which relates to the duties of local authorities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has not been so closely involved at all stages of the debate on this Bill as to know what Mr. Michael Day and the Commission for Racial Equality have said about it. That body, which is charged by statute and was appointed by the present Government to protect our society from racial discriminatory measures, has made the charge to which I have just referred. It is a very serious charge, and the Government have not answered it. No doubt, however, it will come up again in another place.
  Upon that House falls a heavy responsibility to ameliorate this rotten little measure, which does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Ministers who brought it forward. I should say in passing that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office has undertaken his role with honour and distinction. He has attempted the impossible by at least seeking to explain, if not to justify, what is in the Government's mind. Justification would be impossible. The Home Secretary, of course, has nothing to say. The Home Secretary is the Home Secretary. [Laughter.] I use a rhetorical device that Mr. Edward Pearce is accused of having used too frequently.
  I hope that this Bill will come to grief in another place and that it will come back to this House much improved. Those in the other place who have experience of the law—and there are a number of former Home Secretaries

  277
  there who have direct experience of handling these matters—would do well to justify their revising role by making hefty revisions to the Bill before it returns to this House.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Madden: As I have been in the Chamber throughout today's proceedings and attended every sitting of the Standing Committee, I should like to take this opportunity again to place on record my opposition to the Bill.
  Every time we consider the Bill, it becomes clearer that the provisions are wholly unnecessary and unjustified. It has become clear today that it may well be impossible to administer the provisions and, clearly, the Bill may have the most dangerous consequences for the men, women and even children who seek political asylum in the United Kingdom.
  Last year, we were told by the so-called popular press, and by many right-wing Conservative Members, that hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of people were queuing up to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. That propaganda campaign caused widespread alarm among many sections of the community at the prospect of all those people flooding into the country seeking political asylum.
  We were told that many of the applicants—indeed, the majority of them—were bogus, and we have heard that again today. How can that be squared with the Government's information that nine of every 10 people seeking political asylum are genuine—indeed, must be genuine because they are granted exceptional need to remain or full political asylum? We know from the Government's information that the bulk of applicants are genuine and we have no reason to believe that, in future, the majority will be bogus.
  The Government have tried to persuade us that the Bill is necessary to allow applications for political asylum to be considered more quickly. None of us supports the system which has meant that many seeking political asylum have had to wait up to a year—in some cases, for several years—to have their applications considered. None of us can justify arrangements whereby appeals can take months and months to be held. But if the Government want to expedite political asylum applications, they can do so very easily. They could have done it years ago by devoting more resources to enabling applications to be considered quickly and efficiently and by appointing more officials.
  It is clear that the real purpose of the Bill has nothing to do with the creation of a fair and efficient system for considering political asylum cases, and everything to do with political opportunism and the Government's desire to pander to right-wing sections of the Conservative party—which have been in evidence again today.
  The Bill is without friends. Opposition to it is considerable. Its opponents range from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality which, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, has warned that the Bill may well breach the Race Relations Act 1976.
  The Bill may also breach our obligations under international conventions. It will certainly intimidate men, women and even children and deter them from applying
  278
  for political asylum in Britain. The message that the Bill sends out clearly and loudly is "You are unwelcome here, go away." The Bill is part of a process that is now under way to create a Fortress Europe, so that the European Community can turn its back on those who are seeking refuge from violence, from persecution, from war, and from torture.
  The Bill is unnecessary, dangerous and offensive. How, in 1992, can the House agree to a system whereby we routinely photograph and fingerprint even children? Those provisions are obscene. As we have heard today, the housing provisions will create enormous distress and difficulty for many families waiting for decisions on their political asylum applications.
  This is a bad, squalid Bill. I hope very much that it never reaches the statute book but, if it does, I hope that the next Labour Government will repeal it.
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Boateng: This is indeed a squalid, unworthy little Bill. It is discriminatory both in its intent and in its effect. It has been given a thorough going-over in Committee and in the House. Some concessions have been wrung out of the Government, but, nevertheless, it remains an unpleasant Bill. It remains a piece of legislation, the effect of which is to put this country in breach of its international obligations.
  Earlier, reference was made to the specificity of the provisions. The international provisions which the Bill causes us to breach are article 19(4)(C) of the Council of Europe's social charter and the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 97, two articles of international law on which this country has been obliged to renege in pursuit of the Government's purpose—a purpose which does the House no credit.
  At this time of the year, we in the Christian calendar celebrate the flight of Our Lord and his parents, delivered from Herod, into Egypt. At this time of the year, we might reflect on the Bill, because one can be in no doubt that if Our Lord and his parents were to seek to gain entry into the United Kingdom, they would have great difficulty. They would be turned away at the gates. If they were admitted, they would not only find themselves in danger of being fingerprinted—Mary, Joseph and child; such are the provisions of the Bill—but, were they to obtain temporary accommodation in a church or synagogue in excess of 28 days, they would be denied local authority housing.
  This is a strange measure—strange because we have not had established in the House a sufficient reason for introducing a measure of this nature, the extent of which is so thoroughly discreditable. There is still time for the Government to make a better Bill in another place. They can begin by getting rid of clause 3 and its impact on existing housing legislation. Housing and immigration do not mix in terms of the functions of the House in creating new law. They should never have been intermingled in such a way, and they make the Bill even more unworthy than it would otherwise be.
  There have been attempts to make the presentation of the Bill more palatable by stating that bona fide refugees need have nothing to fear and that our traditions of hospitality to bona fide refugees remain as they have always been. An attempt has been made to gloss over the more objectionable characteristics of the Bill by saying

  279
  that they are necessary to preserve the general public good of those settled and permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
  If that is true, the Government can give credence to their own case by recognising the very real needs that local authority associations of all political hues have made known to the Home Office and to the Department of the Environment. They can recognise the representations of the Churches, the voluntary organisations, the housing associations and the Housing Corporation, which seek to deal with refugees who are legally in this country. They can heed the representations made to the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about the impact in and on our constituencies of the presence of bona fide refugees.
  What happens in schools in my constituency when young Somali boys and girls, many of them unaccompanied, find themselves there? What happens at Copland school in my constituency where they have had to deal with several score of Somali refugees without a penny more of resources from the Government? When the headmaster, the governing body and the local education authority, under both Conservative and Labour, have written to the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office about this gap in the funding of local authority provision for refugees, answer comes there none. Not a penny more comes from the Department of the Environment, the Home Office or the Department of Education and Science to deal with the resettlement of genuine refugees and to deal with the impact on local communities of refugees with special needs and problems—refugees already traumatised when they enter this country.
  If the Government are genuine in their concern for bona fide refugees, they will put their money—our money—where their mouth is and do something to help local authorities tackle the problem. Until they show that they genuinely care about refugees and about the reputation of this country, we will be entitled to treat the Bill, as we do, with contempt.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: As one who spoke against the Bill on Second Reading, right through Committee and in today's proceedings, I want to put on record my continuing opposition to the Bill and my contempt for the purpose of it and the way in which the whole thing has been presented.
  It has been accompanied, as other hon. Members have said, by a particularly nasty campaign in the popular press, with day-to-day stories of alleged social security fraud, including telephone fraud, with a story one day of excessive numbers of people seeking asylum and, on the next day, a story of multiple asylum applications. Yet at no stage are these stories properly collated or the issues surrounding asylum properly set out. It is part of an attempt to create a fear, a xenophobic attitude in the country, and it has been promoted by the Home Office and, in particular, by the Home Secretary with his disgusting and disgraceful speech to the Tory party conference some months ago.
  It is against that background that there is a refusal by the Home Secretary and the media to recognise the real reasons why people seek asylum or the fact that the vast majority of people who have sought and obtained some form of safe haven have not come to western Europe or north America but have been cared for by the poor in the
  280
  poor countries of the world. It is in Mexico, India, Iran and the Sudan that one finds very large numbers of people who have sought asylum, living in awful conditions and with very little help given by the wealthy west.
  Yet all these things—the use of the words "flood" and "waves", the supposedly large numbers of asylum seekers trying to get into western Europe—are used to stoke up fears. On the back of this xenophobia, the racists are at work in Europe: there have been 800 attacks on the homes of people in western and eastern Germany who have sought to work there for economic reasons. Racist violence is going on there. There have been attacks on the streets of France. Racist attacks happen once very 30 minutes in this country. That is the agenda of the new Europe. I am not saying that the Bill is entirely related to all that, but the atmosphere surrounding it and the purpose behind its introduction lie in the direction of stoking up racist feelings in this country when we should be heading in the opposite direction.
  The Bill makes it more difficult for those fleeing from persecution to gain entry into this country. As a result of the Trevi group and the Schengen and Dublin agreements, it is now more difficult to gain entry into western Europe as a whole. Those who readily condemn people who seek political asylum should spare a thought for what those who have suffered from political and social persecution have gone through. They should talk to those who have been tortured in Somalia or Zaire. They should talk to those who fled from the regime of Saddam Hussein—not last year when that was a popular cause because of the Gulf war, but five or 10 years ago when the British Government were happily trading with Saddam Hussein. They should talk to those who have fled from Iran and to those who managed to get out of the national stadium in Chile in 1973 when 20,000 people were killed by that fascist dictatorship—another one that was armed by the British Government.
  We need some understanding of what it is like to have to leave one's country, possibly never to return—because that is what seeking political asylum is all about. Our attitude should recognise what we would want for ourselves if we were in the same situation—a place of safety, welcome and understanding. Instead, we offer a limited right of appeal with limited access to social security. We positively refuse to grant such asylum seekers permanent housing.
  The Bill will go down in history as one of those nasty reactionary measures introduced by a particularly nasty and reactionary Government who are seeking to run with a nasty tide. We should recognise the victims of persecution not as the cause of a problem, but as the victims of a much wider problem. We should adopt a more welcoming and supportive attitude towards them. The Bill is wholly wrong and inappropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) rightly said, the Bill is wholly friendless and should be opposed by the House.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Darling: Although we have had long discussions on the Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, it would be wrong to let the Bill pass its Third Reading without comment. There is no doubt that the problems of asylum seekers and of the movement of people in Europe

  281
  and elsewhere are real problems, but they need to be tackled rationally instead of being seen as an opportunity to score political advantage.
  Hon. Members will remember that the Bill was yet another Tory flagship. The Home Secretary promoted its cause throughout last year—in the House, at the Tory party conference and wherever he could—but he has not even spoken today. It is no coincidence that the same Secretary of State who introduced the poll tax, which is now floundering, has abandoned the central plank of the Bill—the attempt to remove legal aid from those who seek asylum. It is clear from today's debate that legal advice and assistance is here to stay—at least for the time being. The Government's chosen replacement is now to be broken up because it cannot discharge the task that the Home Secretary was so confident only 11 months ago that it could. The rules that were published at lunch time today have made substantial concessions. I am glad of that and pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who has attempted to fashion a workable Bill out of what started originally as a piece of political rhetoric.
  However, the Bill remains ill thought out. It was rushed out in an attempt to gain party advantage, which has failed, rather than being an attempt to tackle the real problem. The Committee and Report stages have effected substantial changes and we understand that more changes are to be proposed in another place. However, the Bill remains fundamentally flawed. I refer especially to the lack of a right of appeal. The clauses that are designed to discourage people from seeking asylum serve no other purpose.
  Nothing in the Bill will stop asylum applications. As long as there is conflict and famine throughout the world, people will apply for asylum. The challenge for us is to deal with those applications fairly and thoroughly so that we do not run the risk of sending people back to countries where they may be tortured or face death. The Bill has failed to rise to that challenge. It was designed for entirely the wrong reasons. It has failed to meet the many challenges that it needs to meet. For those reasons, we shall oppose its Third Reading.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: This is a good and necessary Bill and I reject utterly the inflammatory, indeed palpably ignorant, charge by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and other hon. Gentlemen who, like him, have suggested that it is racist. It is designed to give effect to the 1951 United Nations convention in a way that ensures that all those who arrive in the United Kingdom with a well-founded fear of persecution, wherever they come from, will find a safe haven here; and that those who have no such fear and no other humanitarian or appropriate reason for remaining, wherever they come from, will be obliged to leave.
  I urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading and speed it to the other place.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 216.
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Division No. 47]

  [10.25 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Allason, Rupert

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amos, Alan

  Forman, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Forth, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkins, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  French, Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gill, Christopher

  Bendall, Vivian

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Benyon, W.

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boswell, Tim

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hague, William

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butler, Chris

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

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

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jackson, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Janman, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Gran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knowles, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Latham, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fallon, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  283

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lord, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, lain

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Valley)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trippier, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Ward, John

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Portillo, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wilshire, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Yeo, Tim

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Rowe, Andrew

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Alton, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  284

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Haynes, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Battle, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bell, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bellotti, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Blair, Tony

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Boateng, Paul

  Illsley, Eric

  Boyes, Roland

  Ingram, Adam

  Bradley, Keith

  Janner, Greville

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M6n)

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lambie, David

  Cartwright, John

  Lamond, James

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Clelland, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Corbett, Robin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Crowther, Stan

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cummings, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Darling, Alistair

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Edwards, Huw

  Marek, Dr John

  Enright, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Maxton, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flynn, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foster, Derek

  Morley, Elliot

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fraser, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Galloway, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  George, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Parry, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Patchett, Terry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pendry, Tom

  Grocott, Bruce

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hain, Peter

  Prescott, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  285

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Randall, Stuart

  Strang, Gavin

  Redmond, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, George

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wallace, James

  Rooney, Terence

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Housing (Hyndburn)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Even though it means delaying my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on what has already been for him a busy day, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the problem of housing in Hyndburn. It has been the subject of previous debates, of many ministerial visits to Hyndburn and of delegations that I have arranged to meet Ministers at the Department.
  The principal housing policy of the Conservative Government, who were elected in 1979, is simply defined: an increase in home ownership. Measured against that simple objective, the policy has exceeded beyond all expectations. Home ownership has increased from 55 per cent. in 1979 to 67 per cent. in 1990.
  The people of Hyndburn did not need the encouragement offered by the new Conservative Government in 1979 to buy their own homes. They realised many years earlier that home ownership was a good thing. A high level of home ownership had already been achieved due to the self-restraint and independent nature of the people there, and the way in which, over the years, they resisted the onslaught of municipal socialism in housing.
  Eighty-one per cent. of people in Hyndburn own their own homes, and therein lies its problem. The Government successfully concentrated on providing effective policies to promote new owner-occupation but, perhaps undertandably, they did not pay sufficient attention to the problems of areas such as Hyndburn, where a high level of owner-occupation had already been achieved.
  Important though policies such as the sale of council houses, various low-cost ownership schemes, and the removal of constraints on private builders are in a national context, they are of only minor relevance in Hyndburn. With home ownership there at 81 per cent.—it has been approaching that figure for many years—it will be obvious that a substantial number of owner-occupiers are in the lower income groups.
  Hyndburn is a low-wage area, even by comparison with other parts of Lancashire—let alone the rest of the country. Consequently, although owner-occupiers have made their mortgage payments over the years, they had nothing left to pay for major repairs or improvements. That combination of a high percentage of home ownership and low wages makes Hyndburn a special case.
  In addition, a high proportion of houses in Hyndburn are far from soundly constructed. The majority were built in Victorian times to provide homes for workers in neighbouring cotton mills. Although Hyndburn's stone-built terraces were in some ways more soundly constructed than much modern, system-built housing, they were erected at such a frenetic pace—to cope with the enormous growth of industry—that many corners were cut.
  In particular, insufficient care was taken to provide those properties with secure foundations, in an area notorious for its difficult ground conditions. The legacy is a private-sector housing stock that is now fast deteriorating and in need of massive investment in terms of repairs or replacement.
  It is a depressing thought that, despite years of economic prosperity and high employment in the borough,

  287
  about 7,000 of its houses—approaching one quarter of the total, and nearly all of them in the private sector—are officially designated as unfit for habitation, or fit but lacking basic amenities.
  My concern is that those factors—a high percentage of owner-occupation, a history of low earnings, and a poorly constructed housing stock—are not sufficiently taken into account when resources are allocated. It is clear that a high percentage of Hyndburn's housing is coming to the end of its useful life, and that major investment is needed if wholesale demolition in the not-too-distant future is to be avoided.
  It is not too late. The houses in question could be saved and be improved by imaginative schemes, such as the Quadrangle—a Bradford and Northern housing association scheme in Oswaldtwistle. Alternatively, they could be left to deteriorate even further, so that, in a few years, they will be beyond repair or improvement.
  It is much cheaper to improve existing housing stock than to demolish it and rebuild. Such a policy allows people to remain owner-occupiers, rather than become tenants. However, unless some way is found of providing additional resources to help Hyndburn, it will be 30 years before every owner-occupier household there can enjoy basic amenities in a property free from major defects—even on the unreasonable assumption that there will be no further deterioration meantime, and no improvements to basic standards. The average terraced property would reach its 130th year before being brought up to an adequate standard.
  I do not want to give the impression that it is all doom and gloom. Far from it. In 1979, Hyndburn borough council spent only £300,000 a year on improvement grants. Under a Conservative Government, £2 million a year was spent. In addition, because Hyndburn's problems were recognised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when he was Minister for Housing, Hyndburn was one of the first areas to benefit from the Government's estate action programme.
  Generally speaking, there has been all-party support for the housing initiatives that have been undertaken; so it was particularly unfortunate that, when the Housing Minister invited the housing chairman, Councillor Mrs. Betty Court, to London to discuss Hyndburn's housing problems, the controlling Labour group—which included Labour's current parliamentary candidate—voted, to its shame, against allowing her to come.
  Those who know Mrs. Court will realise that it would take more than a silly party political decision to deter her from doing all that she could to improve Hyndburn's housing; she came at her own expense. We saw the Minister together, and as a result £1 million was spent on Huncoat, one of our most rundown estates at the time. That money came from the estate action programme. Since then, we have benefited greatly from the same programme in Fern Gore, Spring Hill and Clayton le Moors.
  That is good news for many council tenants, but there is still much to be done—not least on the Trinity street estate in Oswaldtwistle, and in other areas of the borough where estates are in need of urgent action if the accommodation is to be of reasonable standard. Despite the considerable capital investment of recent years, there are still many council houses with serious defects and a lack of amenities.
  288
  We benefited, too, when—after intense pressure from many of us—the Government decided to extend the neighbourhood revitalisation services scheme. I was very pleased when Hyndburn was one of the areas to benefit. The scheme's contribution to the improvement of houses in the east Accrington area has been invaluable. Housing associations have also played an increasingly important part in the provision of much-needed accommodation for our growing number of elderly people. Schemes totalling over £3.5 million are in this year's programme.
  Over the past 10 years, the council has dealt with the very worst housing, but we are now left with a great mass of properties built within a couple of decades. Inroads into the problem have been made, mainly in the areas that have been targeted for housing action area activity. A series of housing action areas, and a couple of general improvement areas, have represented the main thrust of the council's improvement activities since 1980. There remains, however, an enormous and urgent problem.
  The council's housing capital programme has been reduced from a peak of £6,676,000 in 1989–90 to £4,306,000 in 1991–92, with a similar figure likely this year. That reduction has unfortunately coincided with an increased demand for mandatory renovation grant expenditure—mainly owing to the introduction of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, whose provisions I welcome but which has caused further problems for the borough. For example, the original programme expenditure on renovation grants in 1990–91 was £1,420,000. To meet the demand for the new mandatory payments, that had to be increased to £2.3 million.
  To accommodate the increased expenditure on renovation grants, expenditure in other areas, especially repairs and improvements to council stock, was severely curtailed. Two contracts for the completion of estate action schemes were postponed from the 1990–91 programme, and could not even be proceeded with in 1991–92. That, I feel, is particularly unfortunate.
  The Department of the Environment was advised of the council's dilemma, and encouraged the council to bid for a supplementary credit approval. In the event, the application was not approved. That resulted in an overspend of £520,000 in 1990–91, which the council covered by using the provisions of section 65 of the 1989 Act.
  If the council was to meet its statutory duties to approve mandatory grants within six months, it would have been impossible for it to redeem the overspend from the 1991–92 programme, and it would therefore have had to roll it forward. As a consequence, I arranged a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which took place on 8 May.
  In addition to making a request for supplementary credit approval of £520,000 to deal with the 1990–91 overspend and an SCA of £1 million in 1991–92 to handle the legal duties of the council in respect of the urban renewal legislation programme, we also requested a supplementary credit approval of £300,000 to allow a clearance-rebuild partnership with Wimpey Homes, through an imaginative scheme, to harness housing compensation for investment in new housing provision.
  As the Minister will be aware, the aspiration of many owner-occupiers is to maintain their tenure. The scheme that we outlined sought to achieve just that, in an area

  289
  where there is a gap that otherwise cannot be filled between the compensation resulting from clearance and the price of a new house.
  The Secretary of State visited Hyndburn on 18 June and said that he was greatly impressed by the co-operation between Hyndburn borough council and Wimpey Homes. The result of that meeting on 8 May was an SCA of £900,000—clearly short of the amount requested, but welcome nevertheless. The scheme devised by Wimpey Homes is now going ahead under the title "resale covenant scheme". That, too, is welcome news.
  In this short debate, I have sought to demonstrate that we have the needs and ideas for dealing with them but that we do not have the resources to enable us to do so. I want those people who have been waiting for a considerable time for grants to improve their properties—many of whom I have visited in their homes, where I saw the conditions for myself—to be able to obtain grants quickly. If they cannot, and if there is not an even greater increase in resources than we have had in the past, we shall be struggling in Hyndhurn not to increase home ownership, which is in line with Government policy, but to maintain it at its present level.
  I understand that, once again, a sum has been set aside by the Department for SCAs. I urge the Minister to ensure both that Hyndburn receives a substantial part of that sum and that our bid for estate action resources for the Trinity street estate in Oswaldtwistle leads to money being made available.
  10.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on raising this extremely important issue and I pay tribute to him for his vigorous and consistent advocacy on behalf of his constituents. He has played an important part in securing for Hyndburn sympathetic treatment of its housing problems over the years. He referred to his meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on this issue.
  It is gratifying to hear that Hyndburn has made good use of its past allocations of housing investment programme resources and that particular benefit has been derived over a number of years from targeted estate action money. The upgrading of rundown council estates, coupled with management improvements and proposals for the diversification of housing tenure that have been developed in consultation with tenants, the local community and the private sector, remains a very important element of the Government's housing policy.
  It may be helpful if I set the debate in context. It was in response to a question from my hon. Friend on 6 December 1991 that the Secretary of State announced the Government's decisions on the allocation of housing resources for 1992–93. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns on this score, but I must point out to him that the total resources are very substantial. Gross expenditure by the Housing Corporation in supporting housing associations—now the principal provider of new social housing—will be £1.77 billion in 1992–93. That will allow more than 50,000 new houses to be approved next year—25 per cent. more than the current year and four times more than
  290
  in 1990-91. In addition, £1.7 billion has been allocated to local authorities in the form of housing investment programme allocations for 1992–93. Of that sum, £1.3 billion was in the form of general purpose allocations. The balance of £400 million has been allocated in the form of specified capital grant for private sector renewal to assist councils in their grant aid to private owners and in their expenditure on renewal areas.
  The sum of £364 million—an increase of a third over the current year—will be allocated next year to maintaining the commitment to tackling the most difficult estates under the estate action programme. An additional £215 million has been set aside for spending on housing action trusts over the next three years. That is sufficient for the housing action trusts that have been established in Waltham Forest and Hull and for four additional housing action trusts that we hope will be created in other areas.
  Historically, housing resources have been distributed to regions by means of the generalised needs index, a series of indicators measuring relative housing need. In 1991–92 both annual capital guidelines and specified capital grants were distributed to regions by means of the GNI; and within regions to local authorities on the basis of 50 per cent. by GNI with the other 50 per cent.—a discretionary element—allocated by Ministers on the recommendation of regional housing controllers.
  We have, however, been concerned for some time about the undue emphasis placed on formulae in distributing housing resources. The almost automatic receipt of resources by an authority regardless of its performance has done little or nothing to encourage greater efficiency and effectiveness in capital investment or in protecting that investment through improved management. Nor does it deliver the quality of service that tenants seek and deserve.
  For 1992–93—next year—we concluded that we should move to a system under which good performance was rewarded through higher allocations, and clear incentives were held out for all authorities to raise their standards to the level of the best. In the current bidding round, therefore, authorities competed for a 60 per cent. share of annual capital guideline resources while 60 per cent. of specified capital grant was distributed largely on the basis of local authorities, actual performance as demonstrated by expenditure patterns.
  I am aware—and my hon. Friend mentioned this in his speech—that there is disappointment in Hyndburn about the level of the borough council's housing investment programme allocation for 1992. A total allocation of £4.156 million—which is made up of an ACG of £2.406 million and resources for specified capital grant of £1.75 million—represents a 3 per cent. increase over the current year's £4.029 million. In relative terms, Hyndburn has fared better than most authorities in its region.
  I know that there is particular disappointment that the Department did not agree to fund Hyndburn's three bids for new estate action schemes next year. The allocation does, however, include provision of £1.4 million to enable the ongoing projects at Fern Gore and Spring Hill to continue. Refusal to fund the new bids is a reflection not of the quality of the schemes submitted but of the success of the estate action programme generally. There is now immense competition for what are inevitably finite resources and many more schemes have been submitted than there were resources to distribute. It is true—this is

  291
  good news for the tenants for whom all this is being done—that the quality of the schemes coming forward is higher than ever before.
  One of the important features of the estate action programme is the requirement for local authorities, wherever possible, to make contributions to the schemes matching those provided by the Government. That demonstrates a clear local commitment to turning round their problem estates and enables total resources committed to improving the worst estates to be "stretched" further. In Hyndburn's case we were conscious of the fact that the local authority is already working hard to make its contribution to ongoing schemes and that approval of new schemes in 1992–93 might have faced the authority with commitments it could not reasonably meet in that financial year. The regional controller for the Department has already suggested to the council that its priority should be satisfactorily to complete the schemes already embarked on before moving on to fresh ones.
  My hon. Friend acknowledged—I welcome it—that Hyndburn has benefited greatly from estate action. He also referred to Mrs. Betty Court, a former chairman of housing for the council. I am glad to acknowledge the excellent work that she did during her time as chairman.
  The statistics for Hyndburn tell an interesting story. Since the inception of the estate action programme in 1985 Hyndburn has received estate action resources totalling almost £10 million which has enabled almost 2,000 houses on no fewer that seven estates to be improved. That represents nearly half of Hyndburn council's housing stock of 4.179 dwellings. I know that there have been notable successes amongst the schemes that have been carried out, and I believe that that augurs well for the future. It bears repeating that the priority must be the successful completion of the current schemes.
  Hyndburn has a well-earned reputation for "enabling" the private sector and housing associations to play their part in providing accommodation. I am aware of the problems of affordability in the borough and the considerable thought that has been given in particular to helping local people whose properties are the subject of clearance to stay in owner-occupation by seeking innovative schemes to help them to bridge the equity gap between the compensation from their old house and the cost of a new one.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, housing associations continue to fulfil a central role in the borough in the provision of new rented and special needs housing. In the three years to 1990–91, £7.6 million of provision received project approval from the Housing Corporation, producing 233 new dwellings. Over the next three years, between £6.1 million and £8.2 million will be spent in the authority's area by housing associations on housing for sale and for rent.
  I was not surprised that my hon. Friend referred at length to the particular difficulties in the private sector, not least in relation to the expenditure on mandatory renovation grants. As he said, there is a long tradition of owner-occupation in north-east Lancashire. A very high proportion—85 per cent.—of houses in Hyndburn are privately owned, which is way above the regional and national average. Again, statistics are important: 65 per cent. of the stock was built prior to 1919, much of it with specifications inadequate by today's standards; 27 per cent. of the stock—7,500 dwellings—is unfit; and 30 per
  cent.—8,500 dwellings—needs substantial repair work.
  292
  These problems are, of course, compounded by the relatively low incomes which often limit the ability of residents to invest in their property. My hon. Friend has made those points to us on several occasions.
  Hyndburn is to be commended for the energy and effort that it has put into getting to grips with private sector problems. The declaration of the east Accrington renewal area facilitates a strategic and comprehensive approach to deal with the problems of the area, and I know that progress is also being made towards a renewal area declaration in west Accrington. Renewal areas encourage the development of corporate, comprehensive strategies for identified areas and, by focusing resources and efforts in that way rather than merely responding to unprompted demands, provide a sound basis for progress in regenerating those areas.
  Some of Hyndburn's stock is beyond economic repair and it would be a waste of resources to seek to prop up houses which have no long-term future. It is perfectly proper for Hyndburn to use its specified capital grant allocation to pursue clearance and I know that this is an issue which my regional controller has recently discussed with the borough council.
  I understand the concerns expressed about the difficulties of coping with levels of mandatory renovation grant applications. Hyndburn's problems are not untypical of other districts and towns in the north-west where there is a preponderance of older, run-down housing occupied in the main by poor people. Inevitably, until the new system introduced by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shakes down, it will remain difficult to predict with certainty just what the likely demands for resources will be.
  In the current year, the distribution of specified capital resources by the generalised needs index led to some anomalies. As security against demand exceeded resources in some areas, we purposely set aside a special allocation of supplementary credit approvals totalling £25 million—my hon. Friend referred to it—to cater for that eventuality. After the points made by my hon. Friend last year, Hyndburn was a major beneficiary, receiving a supplementary credit approval of £904,000.
  Before reaching decisions on how specified capital grant resources should be distributed from the centre for 1992–93, we looked closely at the pattern of needs for resources to deal with problems of private sector stock condition and the actual spend performance of regions and individual authorities on renovation grants. A clear picture has emerged of where stock conditions were most serious and where resources to tackle those problems were inadequate. We therefore decided upon a distribution methodology which allocated resources to regions on the basis of the total number of statutorily unfit properties identified. This established a much clearer link between actual problems on the ground and the likely need for resources to tackle them.
  Within regions, as I have mentioned, 40 per cent. of resources were allocated to local authorities on the basis of need as identified by the number of unfit properties and 60 per cent. mainly on the basis of actual performance as determined, in the main, by local authorities' spending patterns. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a clear logic to having a system which not only recognises need but pays particular attention to a local authority's track record and its ability to deliver.

  293
  As we had expected, the new approach favours regions like the north-west with its higher proportion of pre-1919 owner-occupied dwellings—a legacy of its industrial heyday. In fact, in 1992–93 a total SCG of £52.9 million has been allocated to the north-west region as compared with £45.2 million in the current year—a 17 per cent. increase. Significantly, the new figure closely matches the likely regional outturn for the current year and will therefore, I hope, go some way towards mitigating the mismatch between demand and resources which became evident in the current year.
  Hyndburn's SCG for 1992–93 of £1.7 million is 19 per cent. more than this year's £1.47 million. Coupled with the supplementary credit approval of £904,000 already received, it should provide a sound basis for continuing progress to be made in renewing the borough's urban fabric. I appreciate that, in common with other authorities, Hyndburn would like a larger allocation.
  What is often not fully appreciated is that the new finance system set up by the 1989 Act gives local authorities flexibility to meet demand for grant expenditure. The allowance an authority receives for renovation and other specified capital grants in its housing investment programme is not a ceiling. The council can spend if it needs to by using its other resources. As an added safeguard against unforeseen demands for mandatory grants, we have again set aside a reserve of supplementary credit approvals—this time £30 million—for use in circumstances where an authority considers that its basic credit approval will be insufficient to meet demand for housing specified capital grant in any single year. Of course, as in the current year, any such application would
  294
  have to be considered on its merits, and a particular consideration would be evidence that the level of mandatory grants actually approved by the authority was high in relation to the resources available. Authorities will again be invited to submit bids for SCAs during the course of 1992-93. Therefore, an authority such as Hyndburn, which has been through the process once before, should look to the coming year with confidence that, in addition to the allocation that has been made, it will have an opportunity to bid for additional resources if it appears that demand has heavily outstripped supply. I hope that my reassurance is of help to my hon. Friend.
  In conclusion, I think it can be said that Hyndburn has come out of the 1992 housing investment programme round well, with a higher resource allocation than that for the current year. There remains scope in all authorities to improve the management of capital programmes and housing stock, introduce new management practices, work more closely with the local community and fully to engage the housing associations and private sector as a means of making resources go further and securing better value for money. Resources for housing are already very substantial but they are finite. Local authorities should temper their plans with realism. Increased efficiency rather than ever-growing allocations points the way forward; and the new system of competitive HIPs that we have introduced provides a basis for rewarding those authorities who most clearly demonstrate their effectiveness.
  I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the position in Hyndburn to the attention of the House this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Criminal Legal Fees
  Criminal Legal Fees
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Treaty of Rome
  Treaty of Rome
  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Libya
  Libya
  British Visas (Teheran)
  British Visas (Teheran)
  Iran
  Iran
  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Commonwealth of Independent States
  East Timor
  East Timor
  North Korea
  North Korea
  Soviet Troops
  Soviet Troops
  Southern Somalia
  Southern Somalia
  Kenya
  Kenya
ENVIRONMENT
  Rating Appeals (Bournemouth)
  Rating Appeals (Bournemouth)
  Community Charge Register
  Community Charge Register
  Boundary Commission
  Boundary Commission
  Right to Buy, Northamptonshire
  Right to Buy, Northamptonshire
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland
  Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Local Authority Members
  Local Authority Members
  Rents
  Rents
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Watch Tower House
  Watch Tower House
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
PRIME MINISTER
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  United Nations Security Council
  United Nations Security Council
  EC (United Kingdom Contribution)
  EC (United Kingdom Contribution)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Bulgaria
  Bulgaria
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Performance Information)
  Schools (Performance Information)
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Seven-year-old Children (Testing)
  Seven-year-old Children (Testing)
  Examination Statistics
  Examination Statistics
  East Devon College of Further Education
  East Devon College of Further Education
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Universities
  Universities
  Foreign Students
  Foreign Students
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
ENERGY
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
  Major Energy Users Council
  Major Energy Users Council
  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Uranium (Dounreay)
  Uranium (Dounreay)
  Dounreay
  Dounreay
  Sudbury House
  Sudbury House
  Gas Pipelines
  Gas Pipelines
THE ARTS
  Works of Art (Exports)
  Works of Art (Exports)
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Truro Office
  Truro Office
  Regional Reorganisation
  Regional Reorganisation
  Fallen Stock
  Fallen Stock
  Ear-tagging
  Ear-tagging
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
WALES
  Integrated Development, South Wales
  Integrated Development, South Wales
  Mineral Policy
  Mineral Policy
  Mineral Planning
  Mineral Planning
  Coal Statistics
  Coal Statistics
  Waste Disposal Sites
  Waste Disposal Sites
  Traffic Congestion
  Traffic Congestion
  School Inspectors
  School Inspectors
  National Museum of Wales
  National Museum of Wales
  Neath and Port Talbot Hospital
  Neath and Port Talbot Hospital
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  NATIONAL FINANCE
  NATIONAL FINANCE
  Share Ownership
  Share Ownership
  Central Office of Information
  Central Office of Information
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Life Expectancy
  Life Expectancy
  European Parliament Budget
  European Parliament Budget
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Company Accounts
  Company Accounts
  Environmental Information
  Environmental Information
  Iraq
  Iraq
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Armley Prison
  Armley Prison
  Remand Prisoners, Bradford
  Remand Prisoners, Bradford
  Remand Prisoners, Bradford
  Remand Prisoners, Bradford
  Prison Security
  Prison Security
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Royal Navy Reserve
  Royal Navy Reserve
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Empty Commercial Premises
  Empty Commercial Premises
  Obscene Publications
  Obscene Publications
  Sexual Offences
  Sexual Offences
  Vehicle Security Devices
  Vehicle Security Devices
  Joy Riding
  Joy Riding
HEALTH
  GP Contracts
  GP Contracts
  Food Premises (Registration)
  Food Premises (Registration)
  "The Health of the Nation"
  "The Health of the Nation"
  Junior Doctors (Salaries)
  Junior Doctors (Salaries)
  Abortion Act 1967
  Abortion Act 1967
  NHS Performance
  NHS Performance
  South Manchester Health Authority
  South Manchester Health Authority
  Health Matters (Mid-Essex)
  Health Matters (Mid-Essex)
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  NHS, Leicestershire
  NHS, Leicestershire
  Health Care (European Co-operation)
  Health Care (European Co-operation)
  NHS Reform
  NHS Reform
  Palliative Medicine
  Palliative Medicine
  NHS Building Schemes
  NHS Building Schemes
  Residential Social Work
  Residential Social Work
  Body Scanners
  Body Scanners
  Hospital Treatment (Patients' Choice)
  Hospital Treatment (Patients' Choice)
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Incontinence
  Incontinence
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  HIV and AIDS
  HIV and AIDS
  Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards
  Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards
  NHS Number Identity System
  NHS Number Identity System
  NHS Cards
  NHS Cards
  NHS (Overseas Visitors)
  NHS (Overseas Visitors)
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  NHS Hospitals
  NHS Hospitals
  Patient Registration
  Patient Registration
  Bulgaria
  Bulgaria
  Disability
  Disability
  Child Care
  Child Care
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Police Stations
  Police Stations
  Schools
  Schools
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
TRANSPORT
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Tilbury and Southend Railway Line
  Tilbury and Southend Railway Line
  BR Slam-shut Doors
  BR Slam-shut Doors
  Leith Docks
  Leith Docks
  Coastguard Service
  Coastguard Service
  Radioactive Materials Transport Division
  Radioactive Materials Transport Division
  Marchioness Inquiry
  Marchioness Inquiry
  Burscough Curves Rail Extension
  Burscough Curves Rail Extension
  Airline Passengers
  Airline Passengers
  Lighthouse Service
  Lighthouse Service
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Euratom Directive
  Euratom Directive
  Commercial Debtors
  Commercial Debtors
SCOTLAND
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Open University
  Open University
  Organ Donor Cards
  Organ Donor Cards
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Sheriffs
  Sheriffs
  Hill Livestock Payments
  Hill Livestock Payments
  EC Drinking Water Directive
  EC Drinking Water Directive
  Police Statistics
  Police Statistics
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Medical Examinations
  Medical Examinations
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Strikers
  Strikers
  Young Claimants
  Young Claimants
  Benefit Model Tables
  Benefit Model Tables
  Disability
  Disability
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Students
  Students
  Community Care Grants
  Community Care Grants
  Independent Living Fund
  Independent Living Fund
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Care Allowance
  Care Allowance
  Cold Weather Payments
  Cold Weather Payments
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Disability Benefits
  Disability Benefits
  Unemployed Councillors
  Unemployed Councillors
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
DEFENCE
  Energy Savings
  Energy Savings
  Trident
  Trident
  Hunting
  Hunting
  RAF Property
  RAF Property
  Falklands
  Falklands
  Nuclear Testing
  Nuclear Testing
  Yellow Sun Weapons
  Yellow Sun Weapons
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Iran
  Iran
  Foreign Armed Services
  Foreign Armed Services
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Rescue Operations, 22 Squadron
  Rescue Operations, 22 Squadron
  RAF Leuchars
  RAF Leuchars
  Sir Peter Levene
  Sir Peter Levene
  Disability Compensation
  Disability Compensation
  Contract Employment
  Contract Employment
  RAF Greenham Common
  RAF Greenham Common

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Lord Ashburton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Yugoslavia: Peacekeeping Initiatives
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further efforts the EC proposes to make to resolve the conflict in Yugoslavia, and how they propose to ensure the safety of EC observers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the EC's conference under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Carrington will continue its work to help to find a political solution. We support the UN's dispatch of 50 liaison officers to Yugoslavia, and we hope the current ceasefire will continue, thus allowing the deployment of a full-scale UN peacekeeping force. The EC has reminded all the Yugoslav parties involved of their commitments to ensure the security of all members of the EC monitor mission.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that this almost insoluble internecine war is one of the curses of this century? Is it not about time that other forces garnered by the EC and the United Nations were sent in? Should we not take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his magnificent work in striving to find a solution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in praise of the work of my noble friend Lord Carrington.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation is indeed difficult. My noble friend is working closely with Cyrus Vance who is looking after the UN side. However, the security of the people whom we send to the area is paramount.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the matter is to be discussed in the Security Council on 21st of this month. Will the Minister say therefore what proposals, if any, the Government will put before the meeting? Furthermore, will he confirm that 1 million people have been displaced by the war, and will he say what steps are being taken by the EC to help them in their plight?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our policy is to continue the work that is being done by the UN. However, that is difficult to implement because the safety of the UN people going to the region cannot be
722
guaranteed by the parties. The next stage must be to continue the pressure on all the republics in Yugoslavia, including the two independent republics, to ensure that the security of people taking part in the ceasefire operations and in the monitoring mission can be guaranteed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister say whether at the important Security Council meeting Her Majesty's Government propose to announce a further step to send a substantial United Nations force into Yugoslavia?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not a decision for Her Majesty's Government; it is a decision for the United Nations. Of course we wish to take that step, but the need for secure conditions in the area is important.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not regrettable that Yugoslavia is in its present situation? It played a prominent part in defeating the Nazis in the last war, and Britain has a trade agreement with Yugoslavia dating back for many years. I must say, modestly, that I negotiated that. In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would it be possible to ask him to continue his work in the hope that eventually Yugoslavia will be united again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's praise of my noble friend Lord Carrington. Whether Yugoslavia will be united again is a question for the people in the republics. However, at the moment that looks highly unlikely.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might be worthwhile for the United Nations to point out to the warring parties in Yugoslavia that as soon as they cease the slaying and killing, peace will be restored and the United Nations will give assistance in reconstructing their country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House will be aware that there is an embargo on Serbia as a result of its actions. It knows full well that if those actions cease, the embargo will be lifted and that there will be a chance of better prosperity for everyone.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government were somewhat reluctant to provide for the immediate recognition of the independence of Croatia? Does he believe that the immediate recognition at the behest of the German foreign ministry will contribute to the satisfactory settlement that he seeks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was not a question of the principle of the recognition, but a question of the timing. That decision has now been taken and we believe that it is the right decision.

EC: Court of Auditors
2.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will propose amendments to the Treaty of Rome and the EC Financial Regulations (each as amended) in respect of the ability of the EC Court of Auditors to perform its functions satisfactorily.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, a number of improvements in financial management and accountability were agreed at Maastricht—largely at the UK's instigation. Among other things, they will strengthen the Court of Auditors' role in ensuring value for money from Community spending.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Article 82a of the financial regulations, 1977, as amended up to date, require the production by the Commission of a consolidated balance sheet, which is required to be submitted to the financial controller? However, it contains no obligation on the Court of Auditors to certify the consolidated balance sheet or to give any opinion as to whether it expresses a true and fair view. Is the noble Lord aware that that is an entirely unsatisfactory position?
Is he further aware that from perusal of the Court of Auditors' report for the year ending 31st December 1990, which was published on 13th December 1991, it is apparent that the whole emphasis is on the authorisation of expenditure and various other technical matters but it places no kind of emphasis on the validity and soundness of the expenditure which was incurred?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that at Maastricht some six specific improvements were made on that front. One of those improvements, which is particularly relevant to what the noble Lord said, is that the European Court of Auditors is to be required to provide the Council and the European Parliament with a statement of assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts and on the legality and regularity of underlying transactions. That is a big step in the right direction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does a signal service by sticking to this particular last of Community fraud? The effective initiative among the member states was taken by this country first, under the aegis of my right honourable friend Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and then, at Maastricht, by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. This country, more than any other country, has the primacy of place in tackling that problem. I ask my noble friend whether it was agreed at Maastricht that there should be sanctions against member states in default, with substantial fines and an effective enforcement machinery. Further, was there
724
any other aspect of the Maastricht agreement which is relevant to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does us a service by drawing our attention to those matters. Further, I agree with my noble friend that no other country has done more within the Community to highlight the problems. As I said in my Answer to the noble Lord, specific improvements were made at Maastricht: for example, as regards fraud, the progress was consolidated and new measures agreed since the Commission's anti-fraud programme began in 1989; on our initiative particular stress was given to improvements in the reporting of irregularities and further work on the simplification of legislation. We have been at the forefront in urging the updating of the programme to account for new priorities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that a huge proportion of fraud within the Community takes place within the common agricultural policy? That being so, would it not deal with the fraud more satisfactorily if we pressed for more stringent controls in the agricultural sphere and, perhaps even better, if we pressed for the repatriation of the agricultural policies of the nation states?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, unfortunately the noble Lord was not in the House at Question Time yesterday when I dealt with a similar Question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I was looking forward to the noble Lord's contributions on that. Yesterday we dealt with the common agricultural policy and this country's belief that that policy needs radical reform.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is it not a most disturbing feature that the Court of Auditors drew attention to many abuses but the Commission failed to pursue those in order to prevent the repetition of such abuses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right. One of the specific improvements agreed at Maastricht was that the European Court of Auditors should be given enhanced status as an official Community institution. I hope that that will improve matters.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, was any agreement made at Maastricht to limit the growth in numbers of the Commission staff, which last year reached 25,000 people paid on average £35,000 each, all free of tax? Why is that? Why are there special privileges in that direction?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. However, it is a different question from that on the Order Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon is right about the CAP; it is essentially a mechanism for fraud. That is its logical basis. However, we need not pursue that now. The noble Lord said that apart from the Court of Auditors having the classic accounting function of asking

725
whether the money is spent properly it also had a role in looking at value for money. Can he give us any examples over, say, the past three to six months where the Court of Auditors has done some work which indicates anything in regard to value for money from the Community?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I mentioned value for money in my Answer. I said that the Court of Auditors would provide the Council and the Parliament with assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts and on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. In addition, the Commission's responsibility for sound financial management, which perhaps covers the noble Lord's point, is to be made explicit in the treaty.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise. I swear I heard the expression, "value for money". I testify that I heard the Minister use the expression, "value for money". Can the Minister say that the court is not involved in looking at value for money but has a much narrower accounting function? It will be disappointing if it is limited in that way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall have to reflect on what the noble Lord said and perhaps write to him on that point.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is absolutely wrong? The staff of the Commission amount to 14,000 people —a quarter of them interpreters and translators. From my own experience I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the Minister that the income is not tax free.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord would know. As I said, it is another Question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under Article 205 of the Treaty of Rome if the institutions of the Community and the national audit bodies do not have the necessary powers, the competent national departments shall forward to the Court of Auditors, at its request, any document or information necessary to carry out its task? Is the noble Lord aware that there has not been that degree of co-operation from Italy? It is well known in the European Parliament that that is the case; yet the Court of Auditors Report for the financial year to 31st December 1990 carries no specific mention of that defect by one of the member states.
I agree that the Government have taken a leading part in securing a far more satisfactory position. Will they take up the matter at ECOFIN or with the Council of Ministers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall be happy to pass on the observations of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend who will be representing this country at ECOFIN. I hope that one of the enhanced powers agreed at Maastricht for the European Parliament to examine the Commission on the basis of the European Court of Auditors' observations and to
726
request it to report on action it takes in response, may go some way towards helping the problem identified by the noble Lord.

New Car Sales: Tax Treatment
2.53 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend, in the light of the final full year figures for new car sales in 1991, to remove the special car tax on the sale of new cars.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's Budget Statement in the other place.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I appreciate that at this point he cannot give a specific reply. However, with domestic new car sales down 21 per cent. last year and 850,000 workers dependent on the motor industry, can the Government consider tax reductions as a stimulus? Further, is my noble friend aware that the car tax was introduced in 1973 as a temporary measure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government fully recognise the key importance of the motor industry to the United Kingdom's manufacturing base and indeed to our national prosperity. However, I still cannot anticipate the Budget Statement of my right honourable friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the serious downturn in the domestic market as indicated by his colleague on the Back Bench will have a serious permanent effect on our domestic motor car industry unless action is taken? Is the Minister also aware that the tax situation for cars in this country is probably the most adverse in Europe? For instance, is the Minister aware that Belgium, one of the smallest countries, has the highest ratio of car ownership because cars are more favourably taxed than our own commodity? Will the Government take on board that some help may be needed in order to give us a chance to compete on a fairer basis with our competitors in Japan and Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly take the points made in the first part of the noble Lord's question. However, I cannot agree with his latter points. Five other EC member states impose additional sales taxes equivalent to car tax. For example, Belgium—which was quoted by the noble Lord—has a 25 per cent. tax rate on cars up to 3,000 cc and 33 per cent., which is well above our rate, for all cars above three litres.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tax treatment of cars is made particularly onerous by reason of the fact that VAT is charged not on the value of the car but on the value of the car as already inflated by the car tax?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of that. It is something which no doubt my right honourable friend will take into account. Cars are not the only product which bears taxes in that way. Excise duties on petrol, alcohol and tobacco are treated similarly.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government are thinking of reducing or altering the special car tax, will they consider grading the tax to encourage smaller cars in terms of engine capacity in order to reduce pollution and in terms of overall length and width to reduce congestion on our over-crowded streets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of points which no doubt my right honourable friend will bear in mind when considering representations for the removal of the special car tax.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that many people believe that there are better uses to be made of taxpayers' money than subsidising a price cut on new cars? If the object is to stimulate the sales of cars by cutting prices, it would be a great deal better for manufacturers to cut their prices to something closer to the price at which cars are sold on the Continent.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend takes the contrary view to that expressed in the Question. My right honourable friend the Chancellor receives hundreds if not thousands of representations in advance of the Budget. He will deal with them as he feels best.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are considerable environmental benefits to be gained in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson? The sooner we remove some of the older, polluting cars from the roads the better it will be? Does the noble Lord agree that we should therefore encourage greater turnover in new cars so that more vehicles fitted with catalytic converters are on the roads as soon as possible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my understanding is that the environmental effects can work both ways. If we reduce the tax there may be more cars on the road; on the other hand, as the noble Baroness points out, we may have newer ones.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I accept entirely the noble Lord's remark that he cannot anticipate what his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put in his Budget. I hope that he extends the same courtesy to my right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and ceases asking questions about proposed taxes in his Budget in May of this year.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am leading up to the question. We should understand what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, is right to point out that the tax was temporary. I assume that he is aware that every tax levied on us was introduced as a
728
temporary measure, not least the income tax. "Temporary" seems to mean "permanent". Having reached that point, without anticipating what his right honourable friend may do, can the noble Lord enlighten us as to what he sees the purpose of the car tax to be? Is it to raise the price of cars so that they do not pollute the environment, or is it simply an easy way to raise money? I believe that it is probably the latter, which is why the tax will almost certainly last for ever.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when the noble Lord is in a position—which I hope he will not be —to advise his right honourable friend on what Budget should be produced, he can make that point to him. I believe that car tax is an effective and efficient way of raising money. It raises £1.3 billion a year and involves only 25 Customs staff in its collection.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if we are to attain our stated targets of a reduction in the rate of increase in carbon dioxide by the year 2005 it is very probable that we shall have to increase drastically the tax on cars, in particular larger cars?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that that is wide of the Question. I have already answered a couple of points on environmental issues.

The Crossrail Project
3.1 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations from the European Commissioner for the Environment about the Crossrail project, a Private Bill for which a petition has been deposited in Parliament.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have not received any representations from the European Commissioner for the Environment about the Crossrail project.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does he agree that it would be courteous to send Senor Ripa de Meana a copy of the recently published environmental statement, in accordance with EC Directive No. 85/337, and invite his comments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no, I cannot agree with my noble friend. While it might be courteous to do so, it is not the Commissioner's business, if I may say so. There is no provision in the directive for the Commission to vet environmental statements for particular schemes. Responsibility for decisions on schemes within the requirement of the directive is a matter for the competent national authority.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that for once I am entirely in agreement with what he said? Is he aware that those people

729
already interfere far too much in our affairs? To invite them to interrupt and intervene further would be the height of folly.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already stated the answer to the noble Lord's point. In accordance with the directive, the promoters of the Bill have produced an environmental impact statement. It is a public document which provides all the detailed information on the project, its site, and its effect on the environment. That is what is required of us.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has the Commission investigated and indeed reported on the environmental correctness of the new Milan Underground system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not know. That is another Question. Furthermore, it is not a question for me.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question that is for him. The Opposition have consistently supported the concept of Crossrail from the beginning. However, are the Government aware that we consider that there is a need to view Crossrail, and indeed other projects, as part of a London-wide strategic plan that covers land use, employment and the economy, development, conservation and environmental protection? Is it not a great pity that there is no authority in place to deal with those critical issues?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not in the slightest way sure what that has to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Minister cannot see that, he cannot see anything—and that does not surprise me at all.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Oh!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I seem to have upset the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but that is not difficult. Does not the Minister recognise that it is a question which touches on the environment? My question was directed to the environment and other issues which are associated with the environment. Is the Minister not prepared to understand that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the noble Lord therefore suggesting that the European Commissioner for the Environment, to which the Question refers, should be consulted on matters which the noble Lord has raised which are entirely the business of this Government?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not here to answer questions. The Minister is paid to do that. However, if the Question affects the Crossrail project and its environmental implications, why does not the Minister answer a perfectly serious question about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have answered the Question. We have not received any representations from the European Commissioner for the Environment on the Crossrail project. Nor did we invite any on this subject, which the noble Lord suggests that we should and on which we certainly should not.

Severn Bridges Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Council tax in respect of dwellings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 10, at beginning insert:
("( ) This section has effect for the purposes of introducing a new scheme of local taxation as specified in subsection (1) below which shall be based on the occupation of property, namely lands, houses, mines and sporting rights.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 10, 14 and 88, and to the notification given in the Marshalled List that we wish to oppose the Question that Schedule 1 be the first schedule to the Bill.
I can see that my words will not be given the same attention as the words of the late Lord Chelwood at a similar stage of the last Local Government Finance Bill. I well understand that for personal reasons and in terms of the political significance of the Bill. Nevertheless, as the other Bill was described, this Bill is the flagship of the last Session of this Government's Parliament. It is necessary that we give it the attention which the Opposition propose to give it over the next six days of the Committee stage. It is right that we should introduce the discussion in Committee by commenting in some detail on the way in which the different parts of the Bill do or do not hang together, and what might be rational criticisms which can be made of the fundamentals of the council tax as proposed in the Bill.
It is right that we should do so, not only because it is our duty as a revising Chamber, but because we cannot forget the experience of nearly five years ago with the introduction of the last Local Government Finance Bill, and the way in which the warnings that we gave at that time about the impracticability and the injustice of the poll tax were brushed aside by Government. They have since been proved to be entirely justified.
Unfortunately, we enter consideration of the Bill without any admission yet by Government that our arguments were correct and our criticisms justified. In introducing the Bill, all we are told by the Government is that it is necessary because the public has not been persuaded that the poll tax was fair. That does not sound to me like an adequate conversion or an adequate basis for objective thinking about local government finance or about the principles on which it should be regulated.
It seems much more likely—and I shall show that that is indeed the case—that the recognition only of the public relations failure, rather than the actual failure, will lead to an attempt to introduce a new council tax which sticks to as much as possible of the unfairness of the poll tax, that sticks to as much as possible of the blatant discrimination in favour of the rich against the poor (which was the central feature of the poll tax) and confines change as far as possible to public relations rather than substance. That, as we shall show over the six Committee sittings, is the way in which the Bill has been framed.
Amendment No. I refers to the purpose of the introductory clause in the Bill and suggests that rather than simply naming it a council tax it should be based on the,
"occupation of property, namely lands, houses, mines and sporting rights".
That is a curious definition, but I understand that it is well recognised in property law.
Amendment No. 3 is purely consequential on that. Amendment No. 5 replaces the word "dwellings", which is, as will be seen in future amendments, a peculiarly unsatisfactory basis for taxation, with the word "property". Amendment No. 10—and this is a very critical element in our opposition to the Bill—replaces the concept of discounts which are awarded on an arbitrary basis by central government but are paid for by local taxpayers in the billing authority's area, with proper rebates. We shall come back to that issue on a number of occasions.
Amendment No. 14 refers to the necessity for dealing with individual values of property in order to get a just taxation system rather than the banded system which is the basis on which the Bill is drafted. Amendment No. 18, again, is a consequential amendment which eliminates from the Bill the concept of discounts and Amendment No. 88 refers to Schedule 1 which is the schedule in which the detail of the concept of discounts is given flesh in the legislation.
All of these amendments are necessary if we are to make a genuine start to escape from the shambles which the poll tax imposed on the people of this
732
country. They are all necessary if we are to recognise that the experience of the poll tax has been perhaps the most unpleasant and unjust experience which has ever been imposed on local authority finance in the history of this country. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place because he is an expert on the historical aspects of this. Most people seem to think that the poll tax of 1381 was the last real example, but as the noble Earl has reminded us in recent articles there was another attempt to introduce a poll tax in 1641. It was introduced by a Parliament on its last legs, as this Government are on their last legs. It was introduced in despair rather than in any confidence of success. It was introduced without any adequate assessment of what the revenue was likely to be. Although it was a graduated tax, unlike the poll tax of 1987 and 1988, it was introduced in such a way as to favour those whom Parliament and the upper classes favoured and it failed to work almost entirely. Instead of the million pounds or so which was intended to be raised it took 18 months to raise something in the order of £50,000. Even though it was not as bad in principle as this Government's poll tax it was as much a failure as the poll tax now has been. Of course, as it was being introduced it aroused the same level of disobedience —in many cases justified disobedience—confusion and failure to maintain the financial responsibilities of the Treasury. We have exactly that position now.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Harvington: Would the noble Lord care to go a little further and give the Committee some information on where we can look this up. It would be most interesting to know the date in the 17th century.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to help the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. I can give him the reference to the article by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is in History Today, Volume 37, dated October 1987. I do not have the exact page numbers, but perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for that.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord. The article can be found on pages 9, 10 and 11.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Academic rectitude can hardly go any further than that! This is a more serious matter than historical references, as noble Lords will be well aware. This is a matter which goes to the heart of the relationships between central and local government and, above all, between both central governments and their people and between local governments and their people.
If we impose again, after one dramatic failure, a system of local government finance which alienates local authorities from their electors and which fails to recognise the principle of the ability to pay—which was what Lord Chelwood was seeking to impose on the last occasion—then we shall have done something even more unforgiveable than allowing the passage of the last legislation. That appears to me to be what the Government are intending to do and that is what these amendments are intended to rectify. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Nobody could disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in being glad to say goodbye to the poll tax. However, I am not entirely sure that the Committee stage of the Bill is quite the place to give it its valedictions.
The amendment that has been presented is an amendment to the proposed council tax. However, it seems to me that it shows how near the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are on the issue. Not so long ago they were united in their very fierce opposition to a property tax. Now they seem to be very close together again on their support for a tax on dwellings. I am not sure whether it is because the Labour Party was unsure of its position or realised the similarities, but it did not, as did the Liberal Democrats, endeavour to have a dialogue with the Secretary of State some months ago with regard to the proposed new tax.
We on these Benches make no secret of our criticisms of the council tax but we are prepared to do what we can—if there is anything that can be done to improve a tax that the Government are clearly so bent on introducing. I am not sure either that Labour's heart is entirely in this proposal; at least, perhaps not the hearts of all Labour Members. Many of them over the years have made comments about the inadequacy of rates as a basis for raising local revenue. But I do agree that there is an unfairness, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said in various debates, both in the poll tax and in rates and in the council tax and, I have to say, in the so-called fair rates. Property, as we all know, is not an absolute guide to wealth or income or, of course, ability to pay. People may come to own property through so many different circumstances. It may—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If the noble Baroness will allow me. I have been listening to her very carefully and have noted her strictures on both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party for supporting a tax on property. I have always believed —perhaps I am wrong and out of date; no doubt she will tell me if I am—that the Liberal Party was very much in favour of site rating. Does that mean that that policy, which always seemed to me to be quite a reasonable policy, worthy of consideration, has been thrown completely aside and that the Liberal Party now believes that no property should be taxed in any way?
Baroness Hamwee: No, I use the term "dwellings". Our policy is for a local income tax on individuals. We will, I hope, have an opportunity at a later stage to discuss the best way of raising taxes on business property. I have not discarded lock, stock and barrel site value rating or a tax on land. However, at this point in the Bill we are discussing a tax on individuals.
The value of property is not a guide to ability to pay. That is especially the case in London and the South East. I see that the Minister is nodding. This is where we get on to the point about part of the tax being a personal tax. I shall not allow myself to be tempted into a discussion about discounts on this amendment.
734
There is an attempt in the amendments to make the rates fair but it is not a substantial attempt. We have a list of those who would be assisted by rebates. One must welcome the fact that those people have been listed. It is not done in as imprecise a way as is the case in the Labour Party document Fair Rates, where in rather amorphous terminology the word "particularly" in the context of "particularly old people" and "particularly lone parents" is used in a way that is quite difficult to pin down when one is dealing with legislation. We are asked to consider the single retired person. We had some discussion during the Second Reading debate about single millionaires. I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that single millionaires are not likely to live alone.
On these Benches we accept that those on the lowest incomes need the most help, but there is a difficulty when that is dependent on a rebate system. Inevitably it is those who are just above the cut off point, unless it is a high cut off point, who will suffer. It is seen not only in the benefits system. One sees it in so many other areas. Legal aid is one example of where those having little income or capital receive assistance while those who have some means do not. That points out to me how inadequate the rebate system is for the purpose for which it is intended.
Would the tax be administratively easier to deal with than the council tax? Under the proposal there is to be an annual rolling revaluation. The noble Lord is right to identify the problems of revaluation and the difficulties involved in facing up to a revaluation as some of the catalysts which led to the death of the rates—if a catalyst can lead to death—and the introduction of the poll tax. However, I do not have much faith in the administrative efficiency of the proposed tax.
I shall not today move an amendment to introduce local income tax. On these Benches we feel that such an amendment would be a wrecking amendment. We have no wish to detain the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Except for Scotland, in respect of which the noble Baroness and her colleagues are to bring forward an amendment to introduce local income tax.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of that. He is perfectly correct. We shall say sorry to Scotland by seeking to take it out of poll tax a year earlier than the rest of Britain. I am not attempting to overturn the whole Bill, as this amendment must necessarily do, by proposing at this stage a local income tax. It is inevitable that we shall have something of a set piece debate at this point in the Bill. I understand the noble Lord's try. However, fair rates would not be accountable or cost effective and would not be directly related to ability to pay in the way that a local income tax would be. Local income tax would be fair. I regret that the word "fair" in the context of Labour's fair rates amendments is little more than a euphemism.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, surely illustrates precisely

735
why the Bill is such a prudent one. It does not advocate rates, on the one hand—the noble Baroness has given clear reasons why that would be unsatisfactory—but it certainly does not introduce a capitation tax or a local income tax, such as we are promised to hear about, first, in relation to Scotland, and then, on some later occasion no doubt, in relation to England. Instead the Bill offers a middle way. It is beautifully simple. It is not about rates as such; it is not about a poll tax as such; it is a Bill relating both to property and to occupancy.
One of the main objections to the poll tax was not only that it was unsatisfactory in itself but that it was very difficult to operate. That to me is what particularly recommends the present Bill. It relates to dwellings. Dwellings are assessed as if occupied by two persons so that no listing of individuals is needed. But if occupied by fewer than two persons there is a system of discounting on application. The onus rests on the person who wishes to make such application. For those on low incomes or zero income there is a system of rebates.
The amendments to which I wish particularly to refer are Amendments Nos. 18 and 88. They would demolish the system of discounting, which is set out clearly in Schedule 1 and in Clause 11 and which we shall doubtless debate at a later stage. Discounting is an integral part of the Bill. Although the noble Baroness may not wish to move wrecking amendments, surely to accept this group of amendments would have the effect of wrecking the entire Bill, a Bill which offers above all a workable solution to the difficulties that have arisen in relation to the poll tax.
Lord Stallard: It is inevitable at the beginning of any Committee stage, when we are finding our way through the maze of amendments, that we set down markers. I do not wish to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, except to say that I can recall—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can recall—that we discussed income tax early on in the debate on the Bill introducing the poll tax in Scotland. That was many years ago now. We had a short discussion on local income tax during which I spoke in favour of it. No one supported me. I dare say that it would be like that now. We are not discussing that at the moment. When we come to such a proposal I may participate again.
Clause 1 of the Bill has nothing to do with a local income tax. The Government have admitted that the poll tax did not work. It did not work for all the reasons that we gave when the measure was passing through the House. In the end they had to confess.
"I'll tell you the trouble with the poll tax. We were bounced into it quickly because there was such a fuss about rates in Scotland and we were bounced without thinking because of the political fuss".
These are not my words: those are the words of the Prime Minister, the right honourable John Major, speaking in November 1990. In that one sentence he said what we have been saying for years—that the poll tax Bill was a panic measure introduced, guillotined
736
and pushed through Parliament in order to bring the poll tax into operation as quickly as possible. This Bill is on exactly the same trajectory as the poll tax Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord tell us where we can read that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that it was a panic measure and was rushed through simply for convenience?
Lord Stallard: It was in the Daily Mail on 24th November 1990—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stallard: It is your paper. It has nothing to do with me. If the Daily Mail does not quote the Prime Minister correctly, the noble Baroness should take the matter up with her friends. She should not complain to me. The Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
"I'll tell you the trouble with the poll tax. We were bounced into it quickly because there was such a fuss about rates in Scotland and we were bounced without thinking because of the political fuss".
Those words appeared in the Daily Mail on 24th November 1990. If necessary, I shall look up the quotation later and inform the Committee as to the source.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The noble Lord may have read that quotation in the newspaper, but it is not consistent with what he said at the beginning of his remarks.
Lord Stallard: It is exactly the same quotation.
Baroness Blatch: It is not. It is different from the one that the noble Lord quoted earlier.
Lord Stallard: I shall not argue the point, even though I think that it is the same. However, such a case would not be unusual. For example, just the other day one of the noble Baroness's noble and learned friends mentioned the boredom of constantly raising the question of unemployment. But I see in the Hansard report of last Thursday that the word "boredom" does not appear; it was reported as becoming "a pall" on the population. The word "boredom" was taken out because it might do some damage. Although I shall not tinker with Hansard, it would not be unusual for people to say the same thing in two or three different ways.
There is no doubting the fact that the Bill is on the same trajectory as the poll tax. It is almost as long in terms of clauses as the Local Government Finance Bill which introduced the poll tax. However, it has less time than the original Bill to go through Parliament. In fact, it was guillotined in the other place before most of them had time to find out what it was all about. We may take a little longer in this House, but there is still the same kind of protest.
My first point—and I make it every time such panic legislation for social security or anything else comes before us—is that much of what is proposed will be done by regulation. None of us will see the regulations before we discuss their effect. As yet, there is no timetable for the introduction of the regulations. That

737
means that councils will, effectively, have less than one year in which to undertake the development work which is needed on the very complicated computer systems which will have to be introduced. They will not be able to do that until they have seen the regulations. Therefore, they will have even less time than they had for the poll tax—and that was a disaster. This will continue to plague local authorities for many years to come.
In the first amendment, we are saying that this is not a council tax, although the Government have attempted to portray it as such. It has nothing to do with taxing: it is more of a Whitehall tax than a council tax. It has been imposed from above and pushed down to local authorities so that they have to get on with the problems. It is a blatant attempt to pacify the supporters of the poll tax. It is no more than that. The poll tax was a complete disaster. They think that they will have to get rid of it or they will lose the election. But they are wasting their time, because they will lose the election for sure. They think that by getting rid of the poll tax they might enhance their chances in the next election. They did so to pacify those people, most of whom are now on the Tory Front Bench.
I remember the marvellous speeches that those people made in defence of the poll tax. They are not saying so now; but they did say some wonderful things about the benefits of the poll tax system. Of course the "old widow" came into the debate as she always does. The Government are trying to pretend that the council tax is some kind of improvement. It is not. The new tax is really two taxes instead of one: it is a property tax because it exaggerates the property charge as we know it and it appears as though they will give some discounts to smaller households. In my view, a more accurate description of the new tax would be that it is a property tax plus a 50 per cent. surcharge if there is only one resident in the house, or a 100 per cent. surcharge if there are two or more persons resident. Thus, in reality, the so-called council tax is a property tax plus a poll tax. Therefore, one iniquitous tax is being replaced by two equally iniquitous taxes.
The granting of personal discounts to certain classes of individuals is based on the poll tax principle of taxing people rather than incomes. Again, it has nothing to do with the ability to pay and nothing to do with the constructive points which were raised in the discussions on the poll tax. It is certainly taxing people rather than taxing incomes. Therefore, the council tax retains a head tax element which is not related in any way to the ability to pay. Extensive records will have to be kept, although the Government have said that there will be no need for a register. However, I wait to hear that debate when we discuss a further amendment.
The Government have said that extensive personal records will be kept by local authorities. I do not know what one would call that if it is not a register. There will have to be a register in order to operate the head tax element. If they do not keep a register and a check on the situation, how will they know how many people there are in a household? I think that that is a blatant lie which has emerged right at the beginning. The
738
councils will again experience the same administrative problems in identifying the liable persons and counting the number of persons in households as happened, and is still happening, with the poll tax.
I believe that we should begin by recognising the fact that it is not a council tax. It is two taxes: it is a head tax and a poll tax. Both of them are worse than the initial system. The new tax does nothing to improve the situation and councils will find themselves in a tremendous mess when trying to introduce the new tax while, at the same time, trying to collect debts which have accrued under the poll tax system. I have no hesitation in supporting the first batch of amendments. I look forward to hearing further arguments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was not able to be present on Second Reading. However, I have said before that if Opposition parties—and at this moment I have to point out that we have been listening to the Labour Party—will not accept whatever Parliament decides is the law of the land and the way in which local government collects taxes, and if the Labour Party continues to treat the way that local government collects taxes as a political football—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Members of the Committee may laugh, but if the Labour Party intends to do that through the years ahead, it is my view that it would be very much better not to have local councils raising tax at all but that taxes should be collected through a general taxation of one sort or another.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that there are precedents for political parties changing their minds, which is what I suppose the noble Baroness means by a "political football". There are also precedents for political parties opposing the views of their opponents, which might be another definition. However, is the noble Baroness suggesting that there is any precedent for a government in the course of one Parliament kicking towards one goal and missing it, and then kicking determinedly in the opposite direction?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not great shakes at football. However, Opposition parties in this place have a duty to lead the criticism and the scrutiny of the Bill which is before us. That is absolutely correct; that is the way we operate. But the fact that many councils have set ludicrously high poll taxes, the fact that they have arranged convoluted and complex systems for collection which people cannot understand, the fact that far too many Labour-controlled and Scottish Nationalist councils have been overtly encouraging people not to pay (and are still doing so) and the fact that the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party stood by while that was going on is, to my mind, exactly what I have been describing: playing political football through the years.
It seems to me that, because that has been done in the past, it is no reason to revert to a system whereby someone living alone pays the same as a group of people who are wage-earners and who, collectively,

739
live in a similar house. That is no reason for us to return to the rates system. That is what the Labour Party seems to be suggesting. I believe that if we proceed with the Bill, look at the arrangements and the combination proposed and do not, so to speak, fight the general election before it comes, that would give a better lead to the country for accepting whatever tax Parliament decides. If we do not do so, either local government will come to an end or we shall have to give up the idea of local government raising taxes. That is inevitable. I hope that we will not go on like this.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sure that Members on this side of the Chamber listened with increasing incredulity as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, kept talking about political football. It is true that a game of political football has been going on, but it has been going on on the other side of the Chamber. The result has been a series of own goals. That is why we have the Bill. I do not know the number of local government Bills introduced over the past few years. There have been so many that we have lost count. We on this side have not been playing political football. We have been trying merely to ensure that local government remains independent and properly financed. That is our objective.
The Government are making, as they did in the case of the poll tax, a big mistake by introducing the Bill and the tax in haste. The matter has not been properly thought out. The poll tax was introduced in Scotland —my noble friend referred to that point—because the Conservative Government were afraid of the results of the Scottish revaluation. Similarly, because the Government are frightened of the electoral consequences of the poll tax, they are now hurrying this Bill through Parliament. It is a mistake, and it will be shown to be a mistake, with equally disastrous consequences.
If we are to have a property tax, and I believe that it is right that we should have one, it should be a properly thought out tax and one which people can understand and relate to their own circumstances. The tax, as presently proposed, will not appear to people to relate to their own circumstances. In general, people have a pretty good idea of the value of their house. When they see that their house is banded in a wide band that will seem to have no relevance to them. So the Labour Party is correct in believing that there should be proper valuations of individual properties. That is the only proper basis upon which one can form and put forward a tax.
It was a big mistake ever to have got rid of the rates. The only problem with the rates was that, although a local tax, they were expected to finance great national services. If we had dealt with the problem by ensuring that the great national services were financed out of the national Exchequer, leaving local services to be financed by the rates—the local tax—and had the tax base—the valuations—been dynamised, the rates were a good and reasonable form of tax easily understood by ordinary folk.
I sincerely and firmly believe that a local tax, based upon property, is the best that can be put forward.
740
Although I understand the commitment of the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to a local income tax, it is difficult to understand her party's commitment to all-purpose authorities, which would probably be smaller, plus a local income tax, because the smaller the local authority the more difficult it becomes to administer a local income tax due to the change and movement of population within those smaller areas.
Baroness Hamwee: What does the noble Lord believe to be most important, administrative convenience or fairness?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The most important thing is ease of collection. The problem with the poll tax is that it has been almost impossible to collect from a large proportion of the population. We do not want to replace that defect with another defect which is what would occur if we had a local income tax, especially if it were applied to smaller local authorities. The great beauty of a property tax is that it cannot be evaded. One cannot pick up a house and take it somewhere else, so it is possible to reach the occupant or the previous occupant in one way or another.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: Does the noble Lord agree that any tax is difficult to collect if one party, and some of the MPs within that party, increasingly encourages its members to break the law and not pay the tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my noble friend should let me answer. It is my speech. I have to say that I know of no such party. That is the only answer that can be given to the noble Lord.
I shall conclude as I began. I believe that the Government are making a grave error by hastening the Bill through. Even at this stage I urge them to rethink their policy. Never mind about party! What is important is that we now have a tax that will stick, not for five minutes but for at least 25 years. That is why it is important that we get the matter right at this stage. That is why I appeal to the Minister to consider that real property values, with proper revaluation periods, should be the basis of the tax and that there should be proper provision so that people pay the tax according to their ability to pay and nothing else.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendments because I support the Bill. If the amendments were passed they would make the Bill impossible. I have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Stoddart. I was interested in the points they made about revaluation. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that the Prime Minister had commented on the anxiety that arose in Scotland over the rating revaluation. I am sure that we all remember that. It had been so long since the previous revaluation that the changes were going to be dramatic and upsetting. The rating system, as it existed, had become wrong.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Does the noble Baroness realise that in Scotland we had a

741
quinquennial revaluation? The Government were worried because it had been so long since the previous English revaluation. It was not the domestic but the commercial ratepayers who were most worried. It was the Perth conference of 1965 that caused the problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for that helpful comment. I had not fully understood the position in Scotland. I was aware of the anxiety about the revaluation expressed by people in Scotland. The noble Lord says that it was only five years after the previous revaluation. That makes it even more interesting. The previous English revaluation had been in 1973. Everything under the rating system related back to 1973. If those terrible anomalies and great increases had appeared suddenly for people in Scotland after only five years, how much more dramatic and frightening would it have been for people in England.
The Labour Party is misguided in believing that people would like to return to a rating revaluation system. When we had rates there was a permanent outcry to get rid of them. No one liked the system, and no one wanted it to continue. Under the proposed new tax a much greater slice of expenditure would be borne by central government. That is what I believe will keep down the new council tax. It is a much better and simpler tax. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, called it a head tax and talked about registers. He overlooked totally the fact that one will not have to do anything unless one wishes to claim a reduction. Therefore, no register needs to be kept of anyone who accepts that their property is subject to a normal charge. It will only be where the 25 per cent. reduction for one person is requested that one will have to apply for it, as I understand the provision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that acceptance of the the amendments would overturn the whole of the Bill. That is true. The amendments would overturn the whole Bill. Therefore I must oppose them.
Lord Desai: The only welcome part of the new tax is that it is a property tax. It is not a good property tax, but it is a property tax. As I said on Second Reading, politicians of all sides spread much ignorance and confusion about the nature of the rating system and thereby encourage confusion. The rateable value of a property had flexibility and made sense. It had flexibility because one could compare two houses near each other and still conclude that they were subject to different rateable values. The banding system may prevent that. Also, because there was poundage, local authorities could change the incidence of taxation on the property according to local circumstances.
Those two important features of the rates system have somehow either not been understood or have been ignored. Everyone has concentrated on the problem of revaluation. The difficulty was not that revaluation was impossible in principle but that every chance was taken to postpone it. Rather than the quinquennial valuation I suggest that an annual indexed revaluation is the only proper way of having a rateable system, with periodic, thorough revaluations when desired.
742
Since our system of property ownership and taxation, which supports house ownership, is based on an inflationary psychology and has added to inflationary pressures in the economy, revaluations are a consequence of owning property in an inflationary economy. To support home ownership and mortgage interest relief and then to oppose revaluation is a contradiction in terms. As I said on Second Reading, it has landed us in this amazing mess with local authority finance which has been going on for nearly 20 years.
It would have been better if we had taken the opportunity to go back to the rating system and correct the anomalies it possessed, such as the lonely widow living in a large house. Instead, we have once again a halfway house based on two rather peculiar principles. The first is a great suspicion of local authorities. The poll tax was born out of that suspicion and while it has been partially abandoned, there is still great reluctance to have a totally transparent, sensible property tax.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says that one ought to judge the fairness of the tax. I argue in all humility that one should look upon the whole tax system in terms of its fairness and not consider each tax in isolation. We do not have adequate taxation of wealth in this country, it is lightly taxed; there should be income tax, indirect taxes and wealth taxes. They should be judged together as a package in deciding whether or not the whole tax system is fair. It is absurd to judge individual taxes in terms of fairness.
One should therefore welcome the property element, such as it is, of the present tax system. One should deplore the regressiveness that it has introduced, the fact that it continues to be a capitation tax and also its somewhat arbitrary criteria for rebates which are not really tied to ability to pay, as my noble friends pointed out. Thus, this is a lost opportunity. Let us hope that we shall soon have the opportunity to do better.
Lord Tordoff: I am confused by the messages coming from the Benches on my left. I had thought that a brand new tax was being proposed by the Labour Party to solve the problems of local government taxation. It seems, however, to be getting mixed up with nostalgia for the rates. Take, for example, the following quotations from the past:
"Rates are the most unjust of all taxes"
and
"local rates … take most from those who can afford the least".
That is what Mr. Kinnock was saying 10 years ago.
Let us consider also what appeared in Hansard on 23rd May, 1988.
"I believe that even the rates are better than what is now proposed; but I am the first person to say that they are desperately inadequate as a fair basis for raising revenue for local government".[Official Report, 23/5/88; col. 652.]
Those words came from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
I was expecting something new but today sounds to me rather like the Second Reading of a Bill being introduced by the Labour Party. After 45 minutes, perhaps we may proceed to dispose of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To dispose first of the misrepresentations coming from the Benches on my right, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is being misled by his noble friend Lady Hamwee and not by anyone else. Both seem to think that we are putting forward in these amendments the Labour Party alternative to the council tax. As I said, I hope clearly enough at Second Reading, we do not see our role as the Opposition in the revising Chamber as being to put forward a complete alternative.
It is an illusion of politicians, whether in government or opposition, to believe that what they want can be produced by simple legislation. People keep coming up to me and saying, "You know, all we need to do is to have a little one-clause Bill and we have solved the problem". It is not like that. I suspect that when the Labour Government introduce their fair rates legislation, what is produced by the parliamentary draftsman and the Department of the Environment could well contain 169 pages, 118 clauses and 14 schedules. It is excusable for oppositions to have that kind of misunderstanding about the simplicity of legislation. It is not excusable for governments to have that view.
It is clear that the Secretary of State thought that he could introduce a simple Bill to replace the poll tax. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, despite the evidence before him, still seems to believe that it is a simple alternative to the poll tax. Clearly, he has not weighed the Bill as carefully as he might, let alone read it.
I say, in order to get it out of the way before the government reply and we continue with the debate, that the intention of the amendments is not to present a fully costed alternative. The intention is to point out the extent to which the Government's proposals are "son of poll tax"; the extent to which they continue many of the worst features of the poll tax; and the extent to which those worst features are linked in the proposed legislation. If the Liberal Party would concentrate on the amendments before us, rather than attempting to make a case which it is not willing to put down in the form of amendments, then we should make much more effective progress.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: For a moment I thought I was on Second Reading, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and thought he was winding up the debate. We have had a good deal of politics and a small measure of substance on the amendments. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renfrew that these are wrecking amendments to the Bill; that is absolutely how I see them.
The amendments would mean a return to the rates together with some curious proposals on rebates. Domestic rates were the most unfair of all taxes. That is not just the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. We have already been reminded of some of the comments made by several people but in particular by the leader of the Labour Party. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has said he does not have to agree with the leader of the Labour Party on these matters. He said on Second Reading that as an economist he talks
744
sense. Perhaps I may also assume that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
Rates were unrelated to ability to pay. They took no account of the numbers of people in a property. They were based on an obsolete and little understood valuation basis. They tried to assign an individual valuation to each property. The tax rate varied directly with the valuation resulting in some homes facing excessively high bills. The results of revaluations were so drastic that successive governments, not just this Government, found it necessary to postpone them time after time.
The Opposition have labelled their own scheme with the word "fair". That cannot disguise the fact that domestic rates relating to property alone could never be fair. Not only would the Opposition return to the old system based on valuations which was determined 19 years ago but, what is far worse, they propose a valuation system based on an amalgam of four factors: capital value, rental value, repair and rebuilding costs. It is interesting that the Opposition have not so far published the formula which would enable these factors to be combined into a sensible and understandable valuation for each property. That is not surprising as it is almost impossible to see how that could be done. The Opposition's proposals include plans for annual rolling revaluations. That is a recipe for looking back to the future.
Under the Labour scheme there will be no ceiling on property values and no limit on the bills some people could be asked to pay. Many people would face severe hardship, especially those in expensive properties who are above the level for rebates but who have no cash flow to meet the rates bills. Those people might be forced to sell their property or possessions to meet those bills.
The proposal to remove council tax discounts takes us back to another feature of rates which was deeply resented. There was no difference in the bills faced by a single person living alone and a family of four earners living in an identical property next door. To get over that problem Members opposite are proposing special rebates for pensioners and disabled people. The amendments are not specific but, as I understand them, help would go to people in those two groups regardless of their income. However, what is more important, there would clearly be people outside those groups who would face excessive bills under the Opposition's proposals but who would look in vain for help.
Our proposals for the council tax seek to remedy all the deficiencies of the old rating system. First, houses will be placed in bands according to their capital values. The bands will be straightforward and easily understood. The banding system dampens the effect of relative changes in value and so removes the need for regular or frequent revaluation. The limited range of tax rates ensures that no household faces a disproportionately high bill for local services. Single adult households are no longer penalised. The single person discount ensures that single people receive a

745
substantial reduction in their bills. The other status discounts which we have proposed will extend this help to a number of other deserving groups.
Our generous rebate proposals will ensure that people who do not have the income to meet their bills will get the help they need. People on income support or with similar levels of income will get 100 per cent. rebates. There will be a sliding scale of assistance above that to help people with rather higher incomes. These rebates will be available to all who qualify and not just to the restricted groups covered by the Opposition's proposals. There will also be special help for disabled people. They will qualify for rebates at higher levels of income than other people because of the special premiums and income disregards which they enjoy. We have also announced that they will be entitled to reductions under Clause 13 of the Bill if their disability means that they need more space or special facilities in their homes.
Labour's proposals for a so-called fair tax would be a recipe for punishing many middle-income people who have incomes above the rebate level, and who have worked hard to purchase or improve their homes. Couple this with proposals for a 50 per cent. tax rate and no limits whatever on national insurance contributions and it is clear that to Members opposite the word "fair" has a strange and distorted meaning. The council tax, as provided for in this Bill, is a fair tax based on common sense principles. The Opposition's fair rates make no sense at all. I urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted that at the end of her speech the Minister deigned to defend the proposals in the Bill instead of simply attacking her own conception of Labour Party policy.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My duty at the Dispatch Box at this stage of a Bill is to fend off the Opposition's amendments. I addressed the amendments on the Marshalled List today and that is my duty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcomed the part of her speech in which the Minister did just that. I repeat that I welcomed the latter part of her speech. When the Minister is fending off amendments, as she elegantly put it, she should be a little more careful about reading the wording of the amendments. She talked as though what we are proposing—I believe she was referring to Amendment No. 10 in this group of amendments—is relief rebates irrespective of income for single retired people who live alone, pensioner couples, persons and families on low incomes and persons with disabilities. I do not think the noble Baroness can have read the preceding line of the amendment which refers to "persons including the following". I certainly do not think the Minister can have read the earlier part of the amendment which states that this amendment seeks to amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1922 and the Social Security Administration Act 1922. In other words, it should be quite clear that these are rebates in the classic sense which are adopted by governments of all parties. There is no proposal to give rebates
746
irrespective of income, nor is there a proposal for rebates to be restricted in the way the Minister has suggested.
After an hour of debate it is clear that the Government have no intention of denying the charge behind all these amendments that the Bill represents the least possible departure from the poll tax the Government think they can get away with. The whole concept of discounts irrespective of income—I turn the phrase used by the noble Baroness back on her —and the whole concept of a gap between the highest and the lowest assessments of only 3:1 instead of something which is more progressive in the form of the rates, or even more progressive in the form of local income tax as envisaged by the Liberal Democrats, are clearly minor departures from the poll tax. That becomes even clearer when we consider the way in which the poll tax can be expected to operate in practice in different parts of the country.
It is clear that in central London, the North-West, Yorkshire and many other parts of the country individual local authorities will band the vast majority of their properties into no more than three or, at most, four bands. The result will be that the gap between rich and poor in those areas—that gap exists irrespective of whether or not properties are rated highly—will not be reflected in the council tax which people pay.
The poll tax had a system of rebates which was about as bad as any system of rebates could be. First, it only allowed 80 per cent. of the total liability. Secondly, it was restricted to what was called an applicable amount; that is to say, not the real amount of poll tax but the average levels of poll tax. Thirdly, it was based on the Government's idea of what average levels of poll tax would be rather than on the reality of what actually happened. Fourthly, it was supposed to be corrected by changes in income supplement, but it is quite clear that that has not happened.
We can hardly be blamed for thinking that the discount system with which the Government now propose to replace those inadequate rebates is likely to be just as unfair and unrealistic as the existing system. If that were not the case, the Government would agree with the proposal we shall be making that the 20 per cent. limit on rebates should be abolished as from this year for the poll tax rather than waiting until 1993.
This Bill is bad because it is a son of poll tax. It is so close to the poll tax. We shall and must deal with the individual defects of the Bill as we go through the Bill. With these amendments we have an opportunity to express our distaste for the manoeuvres which the Government are undertaking to recover popularity, but not to restore justice. That is the purpose of the amendments and I commend them to the Committee.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 175.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa. L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Phillips, B.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

[Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Varley, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Judd, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Denham, L.

Aldington, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dormer, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Downshire, M.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elibank, L.

Amwell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor, V.

Elks, B.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Ezra, L.

Balfour, E.

Faithfull, B.

Banks, L.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bellwin, L.

Flather, B.

Bessborough, E.

Foot, L.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Gainford, L.

Boardman, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Geddes, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Butterworth, L.

Grey, E.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Carnock, L.

L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hampton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hamwee, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

Cross, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

748

Hood, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hooper, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Hooson, L.

Palmer, L.

Hothfield, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe, E.

Pender, L.

Hunt, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ironside, L.

Pym, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Reay, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Joseph, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Killearn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kimball, L.

Rochester, L.

Kimberley, E.

Russell, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Knollys, V.

Savile, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selborne, E.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strange, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Marlesford, L.

L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mayhew, L.

[Teller.]

Melville, V.

Terrington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teynham, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Tranmire, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Munster, E.

Waddington, L.

Nelson, E.

Westbury, L.

Newall, L.

Wharton, B.

Norrie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Wise, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Orkney, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.18 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert:
("( ) This section has effect for the purposes of introducing a property poll tax.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 229. The Committee does not seem to like reasoned argument against the antecedents and contents of the Bill. Let us try, as Dr. Johnson once said, to clear our minds of cant and set out to remove from the face of the Bill the canting term "council tax", which, so far as one can see, is an attempt to put the blame for central government decisions on local government. Instead let us call the tax by its proper name, a property poll tax.
As I said earlier, this is as near to a poll tax as the Government dare to go. It still arouses opposition from many of the Government's own Back-Benchers, certainly in another place although I do not know whether or not that is the case in this Chamber. It seems only proper that we should not have a public

749
relations phrase such as "council tax" on the face of the Bill or in the title to it. Instead we should have the truth. The truth is that this is a version of the poll tax mediated through the property taxation system. It is no more and no less than that.
Over the coming weeks in debate it will prove to be as complicated, as weak, as ineffective and as unjust as has already been predicted. It should at least be called by its proper name. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite obvious that the amendment is simply a propaganda move without any serious intent behind it. So far the Bill has proceeded on the basis that it is a council tax, and that is what it is. I hope that the Committee will insist on keeping it that way and not waste any more time on Opposition frivolities of this kind.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: At the risk of incurring the wrath of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to call something a property poll tax is a complete contradiction in terms. A poll tax has nothing to do with voting; it means a tax per head. A property tax is a tax on property. How on earth anyone can conceive the title of a property poll tax and waste the time of the Chamber in putting it forward passes my understanding.
We are at the beginning of what will be a long and contentious Committee stage. I agree with my noble friend. If we are to waste time on such points, it rather demeans the Chamber.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to make just one comment. There is a great deal in a word. It was interesting to note that the Government, indeed government Ministers, tried to get the two words "community charge" to stick. By the end of the debate on that issue and the beginning of the debate on this Bill, the Secretary of State himself talked about a poll tax. Words do matter.
Baroness Blatch: I was touched by the newly found enthusiasm for the old rating system. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the word "cant". I have to say that all that was said came pretty close to that word. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, there is a great deal in a word, but that word has no relevance whatever to the Bill which is before the Committee.
These amendments will provide for the tax introduced by the Bill to be called the property poll tax. The council tax is not any kind of poll tax, as my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. It is based on property and the rate at which it is levied varies according to the capital value of the dwelling and the number of residents. It has been argued that in many areas the majority of dwellings fall within a single band and that in those areas the tax is effectively levied at a flat—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. She said that the tax will vary according to the property value and the number of residents, but that is patently untrue. It is certainly based on property value to some degree, but not on the correct property value, and on the difference between having one or two
750
residents and no more. The noble Baroness does not intend to mislead the Committee but she does not put forward the true operation and effect of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I do not mislead the Committee. The tax is based on the capital value of the house—the value of the property. The other element of the tax, the other 50 per cent., relates to people in the property. It is stated quite clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill that two people are deemed to live in each property. Indeed, if one excepts those to whom the tax does not apply, that covers over 87 per cent. of all households in the land. In fact, it encompasses a very large number of properties. There is nothing misleading in what I put to the Committee.
Let me continue. The difference in bills arising from discounts is ignored but in any event that is purely a reflection of local circumstances. If neighbouring properties in the same council's area have similar values within a band it is right that they should face the same level of council tax. Even if the Opposition's preferred system of valuation were in place there would be many areas where the properties were all of similar value and where bills would be very similar. But the Opposition's valuation system would result in minor differences in valuation, which would be inexplicable to the householders concerned and would lead to a large number of appeals.
The banding system is fair and reduces the scope for appeals. Council tax is a perfectly neutral and accurate term for the new tax. Property poll tax is meaningless and not relevant to this Bill. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I cannot resist asking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether he might think that another of Dr. Johnson's sayings is applicable and that this second attempt at a tax is the triumph of hope over experience.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness may well be right. Unfortunately the experience will not go away. The Minister made my case for me very clearly. She reminded the Committee that this tax is based 50 per cent. on property and 50 per cent. on persons. That is exactly a property poll tax. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart rightly said, the community charge was a deliberately cant phrase, designed to disguise the nature of the tax introduced by the Local Government Finance Bills of 1987 and 1988.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My understanding of the poll tax is that it is a per capita tax. There are very large numbers of people who, for the purposes of this Bill, are invisible. They simply do not exist. They are third or fourth residents in a house, many students, student nurses and all kinds of other people who are qualified for exemption. They are not counted for the purposes of the tax. This is not a poll tax. It is not a per capita tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a per capita tax when, to use the Minister's own words only five minutes ago, it is based on the assumption that there are two persons in a house. In other words, it is a crude

751
poll tax. Nevertheless it is a poll tax. The weasel words of "community charge"—which, incidentally, the British people were far too wise to allow to enter common currency and preferred to use more accurate words—are continued in the weasel words of "council tax". Today the relationship between central government and local government, is such that central government is responsible for 85 per cent. of the funding of local government and a very high proportion indeed of the decisions on local expenditure, while local authorities have very little discretion about what they spend. To call this measure a council tax is a deliberate attempt to transfer unpopularity from central government to local government. The implication of calling it a council tax is that local authorities have a degree of financial independence and operational authority which, throughout the period of their existence, this Government have consistently been denying them.
The phrase "property poll tax" is strictly accurate: 50 per cent. property and 50 per cent. poll tax. That is what it should be called and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Parry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

[Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Varley, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Willis, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Aldington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

Amwell, L.

Blyth, L.

Astor, V.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

752

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Melville, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Chalfont, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Monson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Denham, L.

Newall, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norrie, L.

Dormer, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Orkney, E.

Elibank, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pym, L.

Gainford, L.

Reay, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Savile, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Selborne, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Soulsby of Swaflham Prior, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hives, L.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Howe, E.

L.

Ironside, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jeffreys, L.

[Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Terrington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kimball, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimberley, E.

Trenchard, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kitchener, E.

Vivian, L.

Knollys, V.

Waddington, L.

Long, V.

Westbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wharton, B.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and shall notify to the Secretary of State, its best estimate of the cost of introducing Such a tax not later than 31st March 1993.")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 201. I think it would be Convenient if I also spoke to Amendment No. 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Baroness,

753
Lady Hamwee, which is on the same subject. Amendment No. 206 refers to Scotland rather than to England and Wales.
The provision in Amendment No. 201, which is the critical amendment in this group, is the requirement that:
"The Secretary of State shall not later than 31st January 1993 lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the likely cost of preparations for the introduction of the council tax; and

(b) the overall estimated cost of the introduction and withdrawal of the community charge".

As can be seen, there are two quite separate elements to the report and they have to be dealt with separately. The Government have commissioned consultants to estimate the costs that authorities would incur in introducing the council tax, and they have made estimates that up to and including 31st March 1993 the costs would be revenue costs of roughly £115 million and capital costs of £41.5 million. The proposal of the Government is that the Government will pay a specific grant of 75 per cent. of the revenue expenditure and they would issue supplementary credit approvals for the £41.5 million of capital expenditure.
It is not unreasonable for the local authority associations to say that the provision of central government funding is inadequate. There was a change, first, from the rates to the poll tax and, secondly, from the poll tax to the council tax. That means that local government shall take the opprobrium of the additional cost of 25 per cent. of the revenue and ultimately all the capital expenditure involved. Clearly, that capital expenditure would not have been incurred unless the changes in the local government finance system had been introduced.
In a Written Answer given on Monday, 13th January Mr. Key, the Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment estimated that the costs of the council tax would be no more than half the costs of the poll tax. I do not know whether that is good news. I do not know whether it means that the Government have realised that after hitting one's head against a brick wall for a long time it will be less painful to do so at only half the frequency. I do not know whether the Answer is good news because we do not yet know adequately the full costs of the poll tax. There is an attempt in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to suggest that the savings in administrative costs as compared with the poll tax will amount to £200 million per annum. However, it must be made clear by the Government how many years will elapse before those savings outweigh the additional costs incurred by the disastrous poll tax.
I can give only our estimates of those costs, based on information supplied by local authorities. As regards England and Wales, we understand that in 1989–90, the preparatory year for the poll tax, there was non-recurring capital expenditure of £135 million and there was revenue expenditure, grant-aided at the rate of 50 per cent., of £110 million. In 1990–91 there was the cost of transitional relief of £360 million and special grants such as the inner London education grant and the area safety net of £187 million. That amounted to a total of £547 million. In 1991–92, the
754
current year, the transitional relief scheme rose to a cost of £1,250 million. The special grants cost £550 million and the poll tax reduction grant—that accounted for the increase in VAT on 1st April last year—amounted to the enormous figure of £4,830 million. In 1992–93, the last year of the poll tax under the Government's proposals, the transitional relief will again cost £1,250 million and the special grants £360 million. We can expect the poll tax reduction grant now incorporated in revenue support grant to be £5.1 billion. Added together those figures amount to more than £14 billion, excluding the increases in revenue support grant of £2 billion in 1991–92.
By anyone's standards those figures are enormous. They were stoutly denied when suggested during the passing of the poll tax legislation. I do not have in front of me the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum for the 1987 and 1988 Acts. On reflection I should have prepared them. However, there was certainly no indication then that the poll tax would cost such an enormous sum. We can be sure that the figures now included in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum will bear no relation to the real costs in introducing the council tax.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving way. Does he know how much of that cost is due to non-payment of the poll tax? Does he know from the local authorities how much of the increase was necessary because of non-payment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: None of that amount was due to non-payment. They are strictly additional costs caused solely by the introduction of the poll tax and the abolition of the rates. That question does not arise as a result of my amendment. It is necessary for us to make these proposals not merely because we do not trust the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—or rather we do not trust the Government who have drawn up the Bill for which that memorandum has been prepared—but because, at the minimum level of accountability to local people, the Government must come clean about the costs of their two switches in policy during the course of one Parliament. It is not good enough to report on any gross increases in the revenue which must be collected by local authorities without recognising the fact that a substantial part of those increases has been caused directly by the diktat of central government in changing the local government finance system and that all that money has been wasted. That fundamental point must be made clear. We do not believe that this Government should be able to introduce a new system of local authority finance without openly explaining to the people of this country what their changes of mind and new proposals have cost and are likely to cost. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I believe that it is worth Members of the Committee looking at page iii at the beginning of the Bill. I realise that there will be a great deal of expenditure. The first paragraph states:

755
"Savings in administrative costs when the new system is in operation are estimated at £200 million a year".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I was trying to point out that the savings are not against a rational scheme of local authority finance but against the poll tax. It is an exploded scheme of local authority finance. Unless we understand what the poll tax is costing us now and will cost us next year, unless we understand the magnitude of the waste of public resources caused by the introduction of the poll tax, we shall not understand what part that £200 million savings is playing.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was too polite to put the issue in the terms that it was put to me: that the Government have got local authorities, taxpayers and ratepayers into this mess and they should know the cost of getting out of it. That is a blunt but correct way of summarising the purpose of the amendment.
There is natural scepticism about the figures that have been published for the start-up costs of the new council tax because there has not been a comprehensive trawl to establish precisely the costs of setting up the poll tax. The figure for costs which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, spotted, do not deal with all the costs. They are only certain costs, such as the safety net provisions, the VAT amendments of last year and so on. In my view many would rightly say that the amounts which have not been collected—and we are not talking about wilful failure to pay by those who can pay; we are talking about problems of non-payment by those who cannot pay—should also be included as a cost of the community charge which has been wasted.
When the poll tax was introduced the Association of District Councils persuaded the Government to divide the starting up costs into 50 per cent. specific grant and 50 per cent. as part of the normal rate support grant. A local authority in the south of England told me that on that basis it received £60,000 in specific grants. One would have thought that a similar figure would be included in its rate support grant. In fact the RSG for that year was only £59,000. That is the sort of thing which leaves people extremely puzzled as to how the arrangements will apply and whether they can be assured of receiving the amounts which are promised. I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): I shall deal also with Amendments 201 and 206. These amendments relate to the cost of the council tax. My noble friend Lord Balfour drew to the attention of the Committee that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill contains the Government's estimate of introducing the council tax throughout Great Britain broken down between local and central government.
I am aware of the accusation which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes that the figures in those estimates are not always exact. That is because they are estimates.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not saying that the £200 million is not exact. I have no way of knowing that. It is not an absolute figure but a relative figure. It claims to be a saving but it does not tell us what figure the saving is on.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall come to that point. It is on the costs of the community charge, which is the subject of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
We now expect the valuation exercise to cost £100 million less than our original estimate, thanks to the very competitive tenders from private sector valuers. The cost of £19 million to value about 12 million properties in England and Wales shows what can be achieved through co-operation between the public and private sectors. Consultants have estimated that additional costs for local authorities in Great Britain are £185 million. There is nothing to lead us to believe that the initial estimates were unsound. We have already made generous provision for financial support of local authority expenditure in preparation for the council tax.
In England my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment found £86 million in "new money", over and above the original total for aggregate external finance for 1992–93 in order to pay grant towards 75 per cent. of the estimated revenue costs. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales also found "new money" worth £6 million to meet 75 per cent. of estimated revenue costs for local authorities in that country. In addition, we shall be providing cover for authorities to borrow to meet the estimated capital costs. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made generous provision for revenue expenditure on preparation for the council tax in the the Scottish 1992–93 AEF settlement. Because of that generous provision, and in response to representations from Scottish local authorities about the level of their capital allocations, he used his share of "new money"—a sum of £10 million—to enhance capital allocations in 1992–93.
I think it is fair to say that those arrangements have been generally welcomed by local government, and recognised as both fair and generous. I do not think we could be expected to offer more without removing all incentive to efficiency and economy. I am sure that the Committee would welcome that aim. The only effect of these amendments would be to distract local authorities from their paramount task of introducing the council tax itself. I therefore ask the Committee to join me in resisting these amendments.
The part of Amendment No. 201 relating to the community charge is simply unnecessary. Those costs have been, and will be, shown in the departmental reports for the Department of the Environment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, and in the annual local government financial statistics published by the Government. The Government have never sought to hide information of this kind in the past and there can be no question of wishing to do so in the future. There is no need for the special provision for this purpose, and I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn in the light of the reassurance that I have just given.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am intrigued by the Minister's last remarks. I confess that I do not take the departmental estimates to bed with me, but since the introduction of the poll tax I have never noticed that they explicitly give the information for which we have been asking; namely, the cost of the introduction and withdrawal of the poll tax—in other words, the administrative costs which arose over and above those which would have arisen from the collection of the rates. I thought that they were included in broader headings.
I am surprised that the Minister should boast that the valuation will cost £20 million rather than £120 million. If I had budgeted for something to cost £120 million and then found that it was to cost £20 million, I should wonder whether it had fallen off the back of a lorry. I believe that that is what has happened as regards the prices being charged by the estate agents carrying out the so-called banding valuation. What appears to be happening is that estate agents, who have been driven desperate by the failure of the Government's housing policies and the collapse of the housing market brought about by the Government's economic policies, have been looking for a little cash, even if they are not covering their costs. However, at the same time the operation is being carried out in the cheapest possible way. I shall not be readily convinced that a valuation which costs, in some parts of the country, 20p per property will be adequate. If I were a householder whose property had been valued at that price, I should be tempted to lodge an appeal straight away. Indeed, if I find that that is what has happened in Haringey, that is what I shall do.
All that we hear about the valuation process, which has already been proceeding under the powers conferred by the paving Act, confirms that it will be an extremely slap-dash affair. Where a house has a garden which is bounded by a fence and a passageway, the valuers have tried to peer over the fence to see whether there is an extension at the back. When there is no such access, they have not been able to do that and they simply do not know. There are even stories of valuations being carried out from low flying planes and helicopters. That has given rise to the delightful phrase, "in-flight valuation". That will not command a great deal of confidence. The fact that it is costing only £20 million does not seem to me to be good justification for the system.
The amendment is more serious than that. The words of the Scottish amendment and the amendment relating to England and Wales are very similar; there is no difference in substance between them. The amendments point out that those so-called savings referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum are not savings on any stated figure. If it is a £200 million saving on £210 million expenditure, then it is a worthwhile saving. However, a £200 million saving on £2 billion expenditure is much less worthwhile. I do not believe that financial memoranda should contain relative figures of that kind. They should expose the real amount of expenditure to be incurred by the institution of the council tax.
In view of the comments made by the Minister and
758
in view of my need to refresh my memory of the content of the departmental estimates, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5B:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and provide the Audit Commission with such information as it may reasonably require for the purposes of its duties under section (Report by Audit Commission) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 204. It will be well known to those who attended the Second Reading debate that a number of professional bodies and also the Audit Commission were deeply involved in the preparations for the council tax. To varying degrees they expressed anxiety about the feasibility of introducing a tax of this kind in the timescale proposed.
It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Stallard, in the discussion on Amendment No. 1, that the Bill was being rushed through Parliament at an excessive rate. That is certainly true of the way in which it went through the House of Commons. But more serious than that—I am not failing to take Parliament seriously—is the short timetable for the implementation of the council tax and the risk involved of something going badly wrong.
The timescale for the introduction of the poll tax was at least one year longer than the timescale for the introduction of the council tax. The poll tax had at least the advantage of being introduced on top of a stable rating scheme—not everybody liked it, but that is not the point —which actually worked and which could be put on automatic pilot while work was being done on the poll tax. I do not believe that even the staunchest defenders of the Government's policies on local government finance would claim that the poll tax is a stable scheme.
At the lowest level there have been a number of changes in legislation since the original poll tax legislation was introduced, all of which have had to be implemented by local authority officers. There have been all the problems of the interpretation of legislation and, above all, the collection and collectability of the poll tax which have bedevilled it since its introduction. If that brings the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to her feet I shall not be surprised. She will forgive me if I do not express enormous enthusiasm in advance.
It is proposed to introduce the council tax on a tight timescale on top of a tax which even the Government admit is not working. The questions in the report from the Audit Commission, for which Amendment No. 204 asks, include, first, whether the legislation can be introduced in time. The Minister said when the legislation was going through the Commons that there was no suggestion that it would be impossible for local authorities to meet the deadline. However, CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, expressed doubt about it; the local authority associations expressed doubt. The Government's own consultants, CSL, did not exactly

759
express doubt—that is not in their remit—but certainly said that rigorous conditions must be fulfilled if the timetable is to be adhered to. The Audit Commission, as it looked at the problems of implementation, again did not express doubt; that is not its job. But it warned of the difficulties involved in the implementation of the council tax.
The second question which the amendment requires the Audit Commission to ask is whether the proposal will actually work. We have behind us the experience of the poll tax which we were assured by the Government would work and which patently does not. That question should be independently examined by the Audit Commission before 1st April 1993; that is, before the date of implementation of the legislation.
The later reports, which the amendment calls for in alternate years, ask important questions. We have all seen in the newspapers in the past week or so suggestions that there are subsequent changes to the council tax which Ministers are considering and have not chosen to include on the face of the Bill. There is talk of a three-year revaluation of the council tax. I am interested to see that the Minister shakes her head and is denying that suggestion. As far as I know it has not been officially denied from the Government Front Bench before, so it is a worthwhile response which I am glad to have recorded in Hansard.
It will be interesting to see whether the Minister shakes her head at the suggestion made in the newspapers last week that there are to be other forms of council tax sweeteners designed to help the Rhodes Boysons of this world who are concerned about Tory voters in the outer suburbs of London and the South East who may suffer from the high banding of their houses, and that there may be ways in which, subsequent to the passage of the Bill, the conditions of the legislation could be changed. The Minister does not shake her head at that suggestion, which I find equally interesting. Whitehall sources, as we read in the newspapers, say that the Bill is, "not the final word" on the council tax. It will be interesting to know the final word and why the final word is not put before Parliament.
The Bill is full of arbitrary elements, not least the arbitrary discount structure proposed in Clause 11 with which we shall deal later, or the arbitrary elements of administration which we shall deal with when considering Schedule 2. In all those matters it is apparent that we should be wary of the Government's intentions: of the Government's willingness to break away from its disastrous preceding policies. The reports called for from the independent Audit Commission, both before the introduction of the council tax and in alternate years thereafter, would be a good way of informing the public how far the assurances given by the Government are likely to be realistic and what kind of tax we are likely to end up with as a result of the legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments show a rather negative view of the Opposition towards these matters. The council tax is based on common sense principles and its operation will be straightforward. But in any event, there is no need for the Bill to
760
instruct the Audit Commission in its duties. The Audit Commission is charged with enabling local authorities to give better value for money. They will monitor the performance of local authorities as they implement and operate the council tax. And, just as with rates and the community charge, I would expect them to find that there is a wide range between the best performers and the worst. Under the Local Government Bill recently passed by your Lordships' House, the Audit Commission will publicise the performance of authorities. Where they find poor performance the auditor will draw it to the attention of the authority concerned, who will then, I hope, take steps to improve.
The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to consider the proposed reports in deciding whether to make alterations to the operation of the system. The Secretary of State is able to exercise his discretion in these matters in the light of a wide range of factors, which can certainly include the sorts of matters mentioned in the amendment.
The noble Lord reads too many newspapers. Perhaps he is one of those people who believes everything he reads. He also reads too much into what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place when he said that this is not the last word. Much fine tuning is made to legislation. I do not believe that there has been a piece of legislation that has passed through either House where there has not been a need to redress some issue in it.
If there were a return to an unamended old rating system, in addition to complex evaluations when the new system is introduced based on capital, rental, maintenance and rebuilding costs, and subject to annual revaluations, it would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord advocates that there should also be an Audit Commission report every two years on the cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the new system that the noble Lord advocates should be put in place.
The answer from noble Lords opposite to any problem is to increase bureaucracy and cost. That is not our way. We believe that we have given the Audit Commission sufficient power to determine efficiency and effectiveness both in administration and in the way in which local authority performs its functions. For those reasons I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may take the Minister's last point. If we were introducing new local government finance legislation, we would expect the Audit Commission to produce independent reports on the efficiency and effectiveness of our proposals. There is no need for doubt on that score.
I find more disturbing the suggestion of the Minister that the role of the Audit Commission is the monitoring of local authorities. That is not an unworthy objective. I do not say that the Audit Commission should not monitor local authorities and consider the differences between the most efficient and the least efficient. However, we seek something different. We propose that the Audit Commission use the information at its disposal from the accounts of local authorities and from the activities of local

761
authorities to monitor the effects of government legislation on local government. That is the significant factor. That is what the noble Baroness omits from her description of the functions of the Audit Commission. It is that part of her response that convinces me that the reports we ask for are necessary.
The Minister made no attempt in her response to calm any of the fears that have been expressed about the practicability of the introduction of the council tax within this timescale. Those are not so much my fears but those of the professional bodies, the local authority associations and the consultants who have been employed by the department. It may well be a matter that we shall wish to return to at a later stage. Clearly the practicability of the proposals is absolutely critical to the success of the Bill. It is not a matter on which I seek to divide the Committee at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5C:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and shall provide such information as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the purposes of his duties under section (Progress of Billing Authorities) below".).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5C is a paving amendment for the longer amendment, Amendment No. 202, which is, like the others, a new clause after Clause 65.
Again, it is a matter on which I expect the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to be tempted to rise to her feet. We are concerned with the progress of billing authorities in the introduction of the council tax. We are concerned with another aspect of the matters to which I referred in discussing the last amendment. The Minister is quite right when she says that no piece of legislation is the last word on the issue that the legislation covers. On some occasions that is truer than others.
The Bill has 43 order-making powers and 295 regulation-making powers. One could therefore turn the Minister's defence on its head and say that perhaps the Government ought to have made up their mind about a few more of the issues before putting the legislation before Parliament. However, they have not done so.
A more serious factor is that all those regulations will be required in the short timescale between now and the time when the council tax is planned to be implemented. Yet we have only what are described as the first draft regulations going out to local authorities at the present time for consultation. Local authority associations are being required to keep those first draft regulations in confidence. They cannot therefore discuss them widely as they would wish to do.
I put down a Question for Written Answer to Her Majesty's Government on the subject last week. I asked whether they would now consider publishing the draft regulations which are in the hands of local authority associations. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to respond to that Written Question. It would enormously help us in the consideration of the Bill if, within the next couple of
762
days, any Member of this House were able to discuss with local authority associations the content of the draft regulations which contain a great deal of the meat which surrounds the skeleton—the text of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. Does he agree that it would be a truly extraordinary situation if the local authorities, having been consulted, were asked to keep documents in confidence and Parliament was not given the opportunity of having them produced for its own examination?
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may clear up that point. I have today signed the Answer to that Question. I have deposited the documents in the Library of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made was indeed the position until I raised the matter in a Question for Written Answer last week and received the Answer today. Perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Minister for that. I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to digest the regulations in time for the relevant consideration in Committee stage. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that we take those regulations seriously so far as the timescale allows during the passage of the Bill.
A second element relates to the order and regulation-making power. I refer to the national specification of user requirements. I understand from those who are concerned with such matters that the national specification of user requirements for the council tax is not in the form which enables local authorities to specify and commission the software which will be necessary. Anyone who knows anything about the specification of administrative software will know that the timescale between now and 1st April 1993 is very short indeed.
I had not given the Minister notice of the question. I have not put down a Question for Written Answer on the subject. However, if she were able to give us any assurance about the specification of user requirements and how soon it will be available it would be enormously helpful.
On the issue of the draft valuation list, if I remember rightly, the early reports to the Government about the implementation of the council tax were based on the assumption that the draft valuation list would be available in December 1991. We now understand that it will be available at the end of September 1992. Clearly that has enormous implications for local authorities' budgetary planning for 1993–94 with regard to their estimation of what their council tax base is likely to be. They must have that before they start to make the more delicate and difficult calculations of the likely cost of the discount and rebate structures. I say this, I am sorry to say, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who seems to think that this is a simple piece of legislation.
The timetable between now and the implementation of the legislation is extremely tight. Everybody who has been concerned with it in detail on a

763
professional basis, on an advisory basis or in any capacity, has expressed grave anxiety about the difficulties. The only way in which we can tackle the problem and bring it to the attention of the public is by tabling amendments of this kind. Our amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out progress by billing authorities and that he will do so in conjunction with associations representative of the billing authorities. What action the Secretary of State then takes if he finds that progress towards the implementation of the council tax is not satisfactory remains to be seen.
It is of course in the power of the Secretary of State to delay any part of the implementation of the legislation. I hope that it does not come to that. I hope it will not be necessary. But it is desirable that the public should be involved in discussion of the timetable not only for the administrative convenience of local authorities but in the interests of freedom of information generally. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Amendments Nos. 5C and 202 introduce an element of what I fear is unnecessary bureaucracy because they would require a report by the Secretary of State on the progress being made by billing authorities in implementing the new tax.
If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, believes as he has indicated, that billing authorities will be unable to meet the deadline for the introduction of the council tax then he is very wide of the mark indeed. Progress to date has been remarkable. The Government have been working closely with the local authorities to ensure that the council tax is ready for introduction on 1st April 1993, and the local authorities have been co-operating wholeheartedly with us to ensure that this result is achieved.
We established regular working contacts with the local authority associations, to ensure that the practical details of the council tax were given thorough discussion before the introduction of the legislation. That group continues to meet, and has turned its attention to the secondary legislation which will be required. It will also join with the Government in producing practice notes to help local authority practitioners with the details of the legislation.
The Government have issued good practice guidelines on the implementation of the council tax, including a detailed implementation plan. Authorities thus have had a model from which to work in making their own arrangements for the implementation of the new tax.
We have also listened to those many bodies who recommended the production of a national computer specification for the council tax. CSL looked into this and recommended that the Government should make available to local authorities a comprehensive statement of user requirements. Such a statement, produced by local authority computer professionals, was circulated free of charge to all authorities before Christmas—confounding many who said that such a document could not be produced in good time. We understand that the document is proving extremely useful to local authorities as they negotiate with computer suppliers about systems for the new tax.
764
We have said that the secondary legislation will be ready as soon as possible after Royal Assent. Initial drafts of the major regulations and orders have already been sent to the local authority associations for consultation. We are now revising them in the light of comments received, and the next round of consultation will go rather wider. We are well on target for making the regulations at the earliest possible moment.
The Government have done everything possible to ensure that local authorities are able to implement the council tax in time. At the outset many said that the timetable was challenging. We have ensured that it is achievable. The scepticism of the noble Lord opposite is misplaced. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I never doubted that local authorities and local authority associations were co-operating fully with government in seeking to achieve the implementation of the council tax on time. They have the same interest that we all have—the replacement of the poll tax at the earliest possible opportunity. There is no disagreement on that point.
The points that we are raising are severely practical and I hope that I am to be encouraged by the response made by the Minister and that what he said is reflected in the experience on the ground.
I was a little nervous to hear him say that the national specification for software requirements was circulated before Christmas. Of course I am aware of that fact and I hoped that I had made that clear. What I said was that the software specification was not detailed enough to enable the software actually to be specified in the absence of the regulations. It is particularly an issue of transitional relief that is going to have to be built into the software from an early stage. It does not appear, from my information, that there has yet been adequate specification of transitional relief. However, clearly this is a matter which is continuing. It is clear that every time the matter comes before Parliament there will be different degrees of progress. I am not in any way suggesting that the Government are dragging their feet. Indeed, I was not intending to do so. What I was proposing in these amendments was that the process should be made public. To some extent the amendment has had a limited virtue already in that the noble Earl has made public some facts about progress towards implementation which, until today, had not been made public. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 5D:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and notify the Secretary of State of the capital collection rate by such date as he may specify for the purposes of section (Collection rates) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5D I shall speak to the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 203, which is concerned with a report to be produced on collection rates and enforcement.

765
This, again, is a matter on which I am perfectly willing to be reassured if the Government are able to do that. This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay a report on the expected collection rate among billing authorities and the impact on the collection rate of the implementation and enforcement of the community charge—in other words, of the poll tax.
I have already said that the present difficulties facing local authority finance departments are enormously compounded by the fact that they are being required to introduce a new tax on top of an unstable tax rather than on top of a stable tax, as were the rates when the poll tax was originally introduced.
The danger is that the experience of the poll tax has changed people's attitudes towards the payment of local authority taxes. That is a fact of life. Let me not deny that among the 7.5 million people who are behind in the payment of their poll tax there will be a certain number who have not been paying their poll tax for ideological reasons. But that cannot be a significant number of those who have not been paying their poll tax. It cannot be true that opposition to taxation extends to 7.5 million of our fellow citizens. No, the real reason for failure in collection rate of the poll tax has been the fact that, as the Government recognise in their abandonment of the poll tax, the tax is very much more difficult to collect than the rates ever were and, I hope, than the proposed council tax will be.
The poll tax is more difficult to collect because fundamentally it is based on people who can move around rather than on property which cannot move around. It is more difficult to collect because it is perceived to be unfair due to the fact that it is a flat rate tax, and it is more difficult to collect because changes in legislation—even well-meaning changes like the change which took place last year to take £140 off the notional tax levied—mean that local authorities have been forced to produce their poll tax demands later than they would wish to do and to change them and to withdraw them after they had originally been issued.
All of those difficulties can and must be squarely laid at the door of government. I shall not hear with equanimity any further accusations to the effect that it is the Labour Party which is encouraging defiance of the law. On the contrary, it is the Government who, by introducing laws that are impossible to implement effectively, have encouraged far too many of our people to be put in a position of debt to their local authorities, a position which they were never in before the poll tax legislation was introduced.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Has the amendment been moved? I can understand the sensitivity of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the charge that members of his party have encouraged people not to pay their community charge. Well may he be sensitive. His party leader, Mr. Kinnock, has sought to distance himself from the elements in the Labour Party who have been going around the country, and are still going around the country, defying the poll tax and
766
encouraging people not to pay it. The noble Lord will not be allowed to get away with that. His party is rightly sensitive to it because it is a reality.
I have one question which perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be prepared to answer when she replies to the debate. It is about the admissibility of computer print-outs in courts where community charge enforcement is sought. That is a most unfortunate development which I have no doubt Ministers are addressing as a matter of urgency. It would be reassuring to the Committee to know exactly what the position is and whether local authorities will be able, as they have always expected to be able to do, to prove non-payment of the community charge by reference to their computer records.
This applies not only to local authorities and community charge records. It applies to every business which seeks to enforce payment of debt. Virtually every business now has these operations computerised. It is unfortunate that the courts are taking what seems to be a quite unduly legalistic line and are regarding such records as somehow hearsay evidence and therefore not eligible to be put before the court. The amendment refers to collection. I hope that I have raised that matter at the appropriate point.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is seeking to make an interjection in my speech before the amendment has even been moved. I would never have given way to him if I had known that he was going to make a speech of his own in the middle of my speech.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise. I thought that we were already into the debate on the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps I may intervene to point out that Carol Thatcher lives in my borough and did not pay her poll tax. Was she forced by the Labour Party not to pay the poll tax?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not give way any more. It is quite improper. I have not finished introducing the amendment and the Question has not been put. We are in Committee and there is plenty of opportunity for debate. I shall gladly listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has to say, but it would be quite improper, even with the relaxed rules of Committee stage, for me to go on giving way in the middle of introducing an amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether the amendment had been moved. He was under the impression that the answer given was yes. I think that he is being blamed wrongly for that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With respect, neither Member of the Committee has been paying adequate attention to our proceedings. I shall take an opportunity to come back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, if he thinks that Mr. Kinnock has sought to distance himself from the

767
Labour Party and that it has been encouraging lawlessness, he has been paying little attention to the reality of politics over the past four or five years. It only shows that he is sensitive to the charge that I am making in introducing the amendment, which is that the ability to collect the poll tax is itself very deeply in doubt and that the ability of local authorities effectively to collect the poll tax can and must be squarely laid at the door of government and not at the door of the Labour Party, which has consistently, right from the very beginning, defended obedience to the law and been the protagonist of obedience to the law.
The final matter to which the noble Lord referred was the defect in the laws of evidence which appears to cast in doubt the ability of computer records to be used in evidence. That is a matter to which the Government Front Bench will have to respond. I hope very much that it will and I look forward with great interest to the answer. I understand, not that it matters, that the issue involves legislation passed in 1972, which again was during a period of Conservative government.
Let us leave those matters on one side for the moment, although we can come back to them if we want to at a later stage. The point is that the effective implementation of the council tax cannot be conducted in isolation. We have to know, before we can see whether the council tax can be implemented, how its implementation will be affected by the success of the implementation and enforcement of the community charge. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. I should have thought that anyone, whatever his political point of view, would be able to recognise the necessity of that information to guide us in the implementation of the council tax. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will deal with this difficult question of the use in evidence of computerised records. It appears on the face of it to raise widespread difficulties, so widespread that if this turns out to be so, there must be a case for government action. I very much hope therefore that my noble friend will deal with the matter when she comes to reply.
On the general issue, I greatly admire the characteristic skill with which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, evaded the well-known fact that large numbers of members of his party have been urging people not to pay the poll tax. That is well known. It includes quite a number of Members of another place. It includes not just junior or unofficial members of the Labour Party but quite senior people. It is all very well for the noble Lord to stand at the Dispatch Box full of self-righteous indignation that he himself would never urge people not to pay their taxes. It is a known fact that the Labour Party has been doing everything it can to discourage the collection of this tax.
Noble Lords: Not true!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Do Members of the Committee opposite say that the Labour Party has been urging people to pay their tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what we say. From the beginning right up until now the Labour Party has always urged people to pay their tax.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid that that only indicates that the noble Lord simply does not know what is happening. He does not know what is happening in his party, a view that I have often formed of him, and he certainly does not know what is happening in the country. It is a well-known fact that people throughout the country have been urged by the Labour Party not to pay this tax. All kinds of cases have been made where those holding quite responsible positions in the Labour Party have urged people to refuse to pay a tax that is lawfully due. It is no use the noble Lord trying to get away with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the speech —in fact, I shall send him the newspaper cutting—made by the Conservative opposition chief whip on Camden council who pursued his opposition to the Hampstead residents' parking scheme to the extent of saying that Hampstead residents should not pay their poll tax until the council had withdrawn the scheme. Of course, there are individual members of all parties, and of none, who encourage law breaking. Moreover, because the Labour Party represents those most in need and because those most in need are those who suffer most from the poll tax, there will inevitably be more individual members of the Labour Party who encourage law breaking than there are of the Conservative Party, although, as I said, there are examples from the latter.
The Labour Party as a party has never condoned or encouraged law breaking. Indeed, we have expelled Members of Parliament and councillors from Labour groups when they have done so. That is our position; it has always been our position; and it will continue to be so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has simply confirmed, and at much greater length, what I said. Members of the Committee will have noticed that he mentioned the fact that the Labour Party had found it necessary to deal with Labour Members of Parliament who advocated such non-payment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps we should try to return to the amendment. I hope that it is not impertinent for an interested observer to the squabble to wonder whether we could at some point declare a truce on the subject. Many tough words have been spoken. I feel that I should not express the sympathies that I might otherwise have done because I would not then be able to describe myself as an observer.
We are all interested in the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, with regard to evidence. Perhaps the Minister will be able to distinguish—if that was the point made—between

769
evidence at the magistrates' court regarding collection of the poll tax through the criminal procedures and collection of a civil debt to which reference was made.
Like the Minister, I have no particular fondness for bureaucracy. However, one cannot ignore the underlying point to the amendment; namely, the problem, for very good reasons, of collection of the poll tax. I should like to make a point that I do not think has yet been made. We need to know the real rates of collection because of the effect on grant. For example, in the past there have been differences between the local authorities and the department as to the rate at which the poll tax was collected and, therefore, the amount that local authorities might expect to achieve from it. That is becoming increasingly important with the gearing effect which will arise from the tax. I make a plea for information so that the debates between local authorities and the department as to the level of grant can take place on the basis of information and not speculation.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to point out at the outset that what we are talking about is one bill per household. Therefore, there ought not to be, in terms of collection or collectability of the tax, a great deal of difference from any kind of property tax. The fact that that one bill will contain within it an element which addresses occupancy does not bear on whether the tax is collectable. I really do not understand the fuss.
Moreover, if we take the last three amendments together, it seems to me that we are taking bureaucracy to some very extraordinary lengths. Amendment No. 5B calls upon the Government to require the Audit Commission to produce a report prior to implementation of the council tax and, thereafter, every two years, to produce another report on the efficiency and effectiveness as it impacts on local authorities. The next amendment refers to further reports to be produced six months after Royal Assent and two months before introduction. Now we are being asked to produce yet another report for Parliament by January 1993. Such energy and costs ought to be applied to something much more productive and not directed to all that bureaucracy. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that what is proposed would not have any practical advantage.
It is sometimes argued that the experience of the community charge has somehow brought about a culture of non-payment. That is nonsense. The collection rate for the community charge is by no means as bad as noble Lords opposite have implied. Local authorities have collected 95 per cent. of their budgeted yield for 1990–91. That figure will obviously grow even better as enforcement action continues. In the first half of this year, authorities have collected 39 per cent. of their budgeted yield. That is an impressive achievement given the delay in issuing initial bills this year. The collection performance in the second quarter of this year has been better than in the comparable period last year. A survey published yesterday in The Times showed no evidence of large-scale non-payment of the community charge.
770
There is no reason to suppose that the collection rate for the council tax will be worse than that for rates. Many of those who did not pay their community charge will have no liability for the council tax. That includes those who are entitled to the maximum benefit. Let me make it quite clear that I do not accept arguments that such people were unable to pay their community charge. The contribution that they were expected to make was included in their benefit. But the fact is that they will not have to pay the council tax. That will take many of the non-payers out of the system.
The Opposition have always claimed that property taxes are easier to collect than individual taxes. That is what is being proposed to the Committee today in terms of its collectability. The Government have openly recognised that many people did not perceive the community charge to be fair. That does not excuse non-payment. But, however misguidedly, there can be no doubt that many people who could well afford to pay deliberately withheld payment, thus ensuring an unfair burden on their fellow citizens. It is interesting to see what a narrow interpretation of fairness some people have.
I join my noble friends who have highlighted those members of the Labour Party involved both at local and national level and the way in which they have encouraged non-payment. It is a case of setting one's face against the facts. Indeed, only last week I was in the presence of a Labour councillor who openly encouraged people in a meeting not to pay what he perceived to be a tax with which he did not agree. Day after day we hear examples of such encouragement. Similarly, it is not right to say that the Labour Party officially, and from the outset, was so publicly condemning. It is true that it was so eventually; but not from the outset. That took a long time to happen. In fact, in terms of the number of people who encouraged non-payment, the Labour Party has dealt with rather few of them.
The council tax is fair, and will be seen to be fair. It has been widely welcomed. There is no evidence whatever of a campaign of non-payment. In seeking to suggest that the British people will seek to avoid their duty to pay, the Opposition are, I am afraid, not only being pessimistic; they are also being provocative. Moreover, they are guilty of seeming almost to encourage such behaviour yet again. The amendments show the Opposition in a very poor light, and I hope that they will be withdrawn.
In response to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the supplementary put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say that my colleagues at a very senior level are giving urgent consideration to the whole issue of non-payment and the admissibility of evidence in court. I should also like to say that I am wholly sympathetic to all the comments made. The situation is quite monstrous. The people concerned have not paid the tax and they are liable to do so. They need to be brought to book. As I said, the issue is being addressed by my senior colleagues in the Home Office.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am glad—as I am sure are all Members of the Committee —that the issue is

771
being addressed. But when are we likely to be told the result of the Government's consideration of the matter? The sums of money involved are clearly substantial. Indeed, so far as concerns some local authorities, they are bound to be significant. Therefore, it seems incumbent upon Ministers to produce their solution to the problem as speedily as possible. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could give the Committee some indication as to when we will be told what action the Government propose to take, perhaps by some form of new order or legislation. The question was put by two noble Lords opposite. I believe that they will be as interested as I am to have some idea as to when Ministers will be in a position to share their views on the matter with the rest of us.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the urgency being pressed upon me by the noble Lord. I said that the matter was being addressed urgently. As soon as a way forward can be determined this place will hear what the Government intend to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The last part of the Minister's reply is what might have been expected: the Government do not know what to do. They would not be giving the matter serious attention if they knew what to do. It is the responsibility of government. It should have been anticipated when the legislation was put forward, because the responsibility for the shambles is due to the fact that the poll tax legislation took the issue of non-payment to the magistrates in civil proceedings. It is there that the laws of evidence are inadequate. The Government should have thought of that at the time.
I find it a bit rich that a government who have wasted £14 billion of public money on introducing a poll tax, and more money on removing it, should complain about the cost of bureaucracy involved in the production of reports designed to inform the public what is happening. I should have thought that the minimum requirement of freedom of information was that there should be such reports and that the public should be given the facts upon which to make a judgment about the progress towards implementation and the success or otherwise of the council tax.
The Minister is of course right to say that the council tax does not have many of the features of the poll tax which made the poll tax uncollectable. She is right to point out that it is a household tax and not an individual tax, although when we debate the next amendment we shall deal with the issue of discounts, which will cause much more difficulty than she thinks it will. She is right to point out that many of the problems that existed with the poll tax do not exist with the proposed council tax.
But of course that poll tax was introduced by the Government, despite the opposition from these Benches and, at that time, the Liberal Benches. I see that they are now tempering their opposition to the Government proposals. We were all saying that we could not have a tax which worked effectively if the poorest people had to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax on the phoney argument of accountability; that we
772
could not have a tax which worked effectively in urban areas where there is high mobility and people have to be chased around to establish their liability; that we could not have a tax which worked effectively if there were ponderous recovery procedures; and that we could not have a tax which worked effectively if there were any difficulty in establishing certainty. It is not just a matter of computer records; there is the issue of establishing who lived where at what time and, to a tiny extent compared with the manifest unfairness of the poll tax, the non-payment campaigns in some parts of the country.
In 1991, only 14 local authorities had a higher collection level than in 1990. The collection figures that the Minister gave, with which she sought to reassure the Committee, were based upon a percentage collection of budgeted receipts; not of 100 per cent., because many local authorities, anticipating a shortfall, had budgeted for recovery rates of 95 per cent. or, more likely, 90 per cent. Conservative-controlled authorities are finding it at least as difficult as Labour-controlled authorities to collect the poll tax. The example I have been given is Norfolk. The only district in Norfolk which is collecting more successfully in 1991 than in 1990 is Great Yarmouth, the only Labour-controlled authority.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What about Norwich?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is the only Labour-controlled authority apart from Norwich in the whole of Norfolk. The argument that the non-collection is caused by wicked Labour agitators does not stand up. It is in any case irrelevant to the main thrust of the amendment which is that the successful implementation of the council tax is dependent upon a stable tax base. We do not have that stable base. Things are much worse than the Minister seeks to assure the Committee because of the defects in the poll tax that were pointed out by us at the time the legislation was going through.
We shall clearly not make progress with the modest aim of the amendment which is to secure that we have adequate information for the public. We shall have to find some other way of achieving that aim.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord because I support the amendment. Perhaps he will accept that, in voting against the first amendment, we were not so much voting with the Government as voting against the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said that the Liberals were tempering their opposition. I thought that I chose my words carefully. I shall adhere to those words. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(1A) The duty specified in subsection (1) above shall be applicable from the date therein referred to, whether or not preparations for the introduction of discounts in accordance with section 11 and Schedule 1 below have been completed by

773
such date as the Secretary of State may specify which shall be not later than three months before the date specified in subsection (1).
(1B) In any case where subsection (1A) above applies, the provisions of section 11 and Schedule 1 below shall not apply for the period of the financial year concerned.
(1C) Notwithstanding the provision of subsections (1A) and (1B) above, the provisions of Schedule 9 below concerning eligibility for income support up to 100 per cent. of the amount of any council tax liability shall have effect from the date specified in subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment highlights one of the most difficult aspects of the council tax. I have already accepted that the council tax is by no means as bad as the poll tax in terms of collection. I think that "joy in heaven" is the relevant phrase here. The most difficult element of the council tax is likely to be the discount structure. Local authorities inevitably are still unsure about the discount structure. They find it difficult to make the decisions that they will soon have to make. They do not know at what stage before the implementation of the council tax they should be granting discounts. They do not yet have an adequate definition of what is a sole or main residence which will apply to the discounts under Clause 4 —the exempt dwellings part of the legislation. They have no information about the extremely complicated issue of the interaction between discounts and social security benefits.
What is needed, as we shall say later, is 100 per cent. rebates rather than a discount structure, because that would have a single coherent basis which could be approached properly thorough well-tried procedures. The idea of discounts for single-person households is a new one. It will inevitably cause practical difficulties. If we are interested in ensuring that the council tax is introduced on the proposed starting date of 1st April 1993, it should not be held up by one issue—the threat of the discount structure not being in operation.
We should prefer to see the end of the poll tax in 1993 even if there were to be some delay in the implementation of the discount structure. We should prefer even more to see a different structure—a comprehensive system of 100 per cent. rebates—but this modest amendment would be a protection for the Government, which I hope that they will accept in the spirit in which it is meant, against what would be an unnecessary and damaging delay in the implementation of the council tax. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 7 appears to reflect the Opposition's doubt about the discount provisions and local authorities' ability to make preparation for them. The amendment is unnecessary. The discounts are straightforward, easy to administer, and most households will receive and pay a standard bill.
Local authorities already have a good deal of information on single person households, students and so on, from their existing records. Local authorities will be required by the Bill to take reasonable steps to ascertain discount entitlement, but if they have no information they will then be able to send out a standard bill. Any household which receives a standard bill will be able to inform the local
774
authority if it believes that it should be entitled to a discount. I should make it clear that there will be a duty on those who receive a discount to tell the authority when that entitlement ceases or reduces.
In this legislation we have sought to make life as easy as possible. The administration and enforcement provisions of the Bill are very similar to those of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. One of the reasons was in order to minimise the extent to which local authority practitioners would have to face a completely new system. Further, we have issued good practice guidelines and a model implementation plan to all local authorities. Our draft practice notes and regulations are being drawn up in conjunction with the local authority associations and we have also sent every local authority in England a detailed user requirement specification for council tax computer systems which the local authority associations say they find useful.
The Government are doing everything possible to help local authorities to implement the council tax on 1st April 1993 and will continue to do so. That of course includes the use of the discount regime. I hope that, in the light of that, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the Minister is right and that all these precautions turn out to be justified. I am not given great confidence when he says that the enforcement procedures are the same as in the 1988 Act. We have just heard a long discussion, including a relevant intervention from the Minister's own Back-Benchers, which indicates that enforcement procedures under the 1988 Act are not working well. I feel that that part of the script might have been rewritten in the light of recent experience.
The second way in which the script might have been rewritten in the light of recent experience is the repeated claim that the user specifications which have been issued to local authorities have been well received by them. I have no doubt that they say that the specifications are helpful, but I am told by local authorities that they cannot use them yet because there are many aspects—notably transitional provisions and items to be specified in regulations—which are not yet decided. Therefore the software cannot yet be ordered. I should be grateful if the Minister could find some opportunity, either on this amendment or on a later one, to think again about those two elements of his response.
I hope that the Minister is right about the more important and central issue: discounts. He pointed out that it is the responsibility of individuals to notify the billing authority if the eligibility for discount changes, whether it is an exempt dwelling discount or a single person discount. That sounds to me suspiciously like the kind of obligation which existed on individuals under the poll tax legislation. I fear that with high mobility—and not just mobility but changes in household structure, particularly in our cities—it will not be anything like as simple as the Minister thinks. We have, Cassandra-like, warned. If our warnings are ignored, so be it. I still believe that there are dangers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved amendment No.8:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("the Common Council").
The noble Lord said: This is a commonsense little amendment. I am not much of a supporter of the City of London, as Members of the Committee may know. However, this amendment is not against the interests of the City of London or the Common Council. There are fewer than 5,000 charge payers in the whole of the City of London; therefore presumably there are even fewer residential dwellings. Is it not rather a bureaucratic nonsense to make them an independent billing authority? Could not that responsibility be taken over by a neighbouring authority, even if it were Westminster? I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was relieved to hear the disclaimer by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that this amendment is not aimed at getting rid of the Common Council but rather to help it. I read it as being a paving amendment for a Bill, about which we would presumably hear some other time, to abolish the whole of the City of London government. I was prepared to weigh in with a long and authoritative speech about how valuable it is on matters such as Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches and many other useful activities of the City of London. However, I shall not do that.
I do not disagree with the idea that perhaps to have a whole separate billing authority for the City of London might be unnecessary. Could there be some provision in the Bill which would allow an authority like the Common Council to contract out to another authority the collection of its council tax? Would not that be a sensible way of dealing with the problem, so that if they wanted to do it they could do so? It is now totally within the philosophy of local authorities that, if they can find someone else to do something more cheaply and effectively, they should be entitled to do so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The City of London has always been treated differently in terms of local government and it is quite a unique area. As the Committee may know, my dental surgery was in the City and I was well aware of the small number of residents who attended it as patients.
I oppose the amendment because I believe it is right that as long as the City is a local authority—and I hope that that will long continue—it should retain its rights in the same way as anyone else. If it cares to use some other form of computer help from a business or another independent body, it should be its choice. However, we should not, through this Bill and on the face of primary legislation, consider the erosion of the rights of the City.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. It would be a great mistake to eliminate an element of the City of London merely because the element is fairly small. I disagree very much with my noble friend Lord Jenkin and hope that the Minister will reject the amendment.
Earl Howe: As has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the amendment would mean
776
that there would be no council tax bills in the City of London. The residents—few though they may be—would not pay a penny towards local services. I find that unacceptable. I cannot for the life of me see why residents of the Barbican should not pay council tax. However small the population in an area, we believe that the residents should contribute to local spending. That is the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is obviously concerned that, because there are so few dwellings in the City of London, the council tax may be set at an exceptionally high level. His concern may not be entirely unconnected with the wish of his party to see the City of London as an entity disappear. But that is by the way.
I can, however, assure him that what he fears will not happen. The residents of the City will be protected against inordinately high bills. Under the community charge we provided special arrangements to ensure that the charge payer was protected against changes in the authority's spending level. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the Bill we shall introduce even simpler arrangements to guard against similar problems with the council tax.
To clarify one further point that has been raised, the City of London could contract out of collection of the tax if it wished. However, that is a separate issue altogether. I therefore hope that the noble Lord is persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wish to make one point since the proceedings may be carefully studied in the Guildhall. I should like to make it clear to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that I did not suggest that the amendment should be accepted. I am greatly reassured by what my noble friend on the Front Bench said; he has exactly answered my case. If the authority wishes to contract out its tax collection, it can do so.
That is all I asked about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl has adequately answered my point, I was concerned only with the contracting out of billing procedures. It certainly was not my intention in the amendment to suggest that residents of the City should not pay the council tax. If the amendment says that, then it is bad drafting on my part and I apologise. Other Members of the Committee opposite have sought in their non-speeches—they made non-speeches in the absence of the kind of speech they expected from me—to cast doubt on my motives in moving this amendment. They think, rightly, that I am antagonistic to the continued existence of the City of London in its present form. However, the amendment is not about that. I am satisfied with the assurances the Government have given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 returns to the issue of regulations. This gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister—it was the noble Baroness, Lady

777
Blatch, who gave me the assurance that I much welcomed about the publication of regulations—to explain in more detail what material is being placed in the Library. I ask that as I have not had the opportunity to leave the Chamber to check what is available.
Many types of regulations are provided under the Bill. The draft regulations so far issued for consultation cover an order to exempt dwellings; regulations placing liability on owners; an order defining a person disregarded for discount; regulations prescribing conditions for discount disregards; administration and enforcement regulations and calculation of tax base regulations. I have no doubt there are others. I hope the Minister can assure me that all those regulations have been placed in the Library and are now available for public debate. They are rather important as regards our ability to consider adequately the impact of the Bill.
The amendment, in contrast to the way we usually approach order-making powers in the Bill, suggests that the Secretary of State should be required to make regulations of this kind rather than merely have the ability to do so. It may be thought this is just a question of semantics and that if the Secretary of State is going to make the regulations anyway there is no reason why he should object to the word "shall" rather than the word "may". However, if the Secretary of State will make regulations about some things and not about others—that is why I read out the list of matters that I understand are the subjects of consultation at the moment—it is important that the Government should say what regulations will be made. The Government should not shelter behind the use of the word "may" rather than "shall".
This amendment in effect gives the Government the opportunity to set out a timetable for the making of regulations and for decisions about regulations. We have heard some helpful speeches from the Government Front Bench on that subject and we have learnt a lot more about what is in the Government's mind. I should make it clear that this is only a probing amendment at this stage. However, I hope those aspects of the regulation process will be spelt out in greater detail. This amendment gives the Government an opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I appreciate the noble Lord has moved simply a probing amendment about regulations in general. However, I hope I may indicate an inconsistency in this context. I was pondering Amendment No. 10. I realise that amendment has already been discussed, but that does not prevent my pondering it. It is an extraordinary feature that Amendment No. 10 requests that the remainder of the subsection under discussion which states,
"containing rules for treating a dwelling as situated in a billing authority's area",
should be omitted altogether. I am left uncertain as regards the noble Lord's concern about this subsection which he is seeking to amend. Clearly, as regards Amendment No. 10, the noble Lord had another horse to flog in urging the deletion of the rest of this subsection. Does he not feel, however, that it is a little inconsistent in one amendment, which he
778
personally proposed, to suggest omitting altogether the remainder of the subsection while stating in Amendment No. 9, which he is now proposing, that the provision is so important it should be mandatory rather than optional?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall deal with that point before the Minister replies as there is a simple answer. Amendment No. 10 sought to remove a form of words and replace those words with a stronger form of words.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: That amendment dealt with a quite different provision if I am not mistaken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The provision still related to regulations, which is what Amendment No. 9 concerns. It is entirely appropriate that we should seek to strengthen a form of words on two separate occasions rather than just once.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: While I realise this is a probing amendment I think it is worthwhile drawing attention to Clause 1(3) and particularly to the final words of the subsection which state:
"if part only of the dwelling falls within the area".
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I hope I may again draw his attention to Clause 10(2), which is printed almost at the top of page 7 of the Bill. Here again we are dealing with the problem of where a property or a dwelling is situated within a billing authority's area. There may be some doubt about that provision. These are the kind of cases where the word "may" in relation to the Secretary of State will be rather important as opposed to the word "shall".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope I may get this peripheral item out of the way. With all due respect to the noble Earl, I should inform him that we shall be dealing with Clause 10(2) in later amendments.
Earl Howe: This amendment would require rather than permit the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the treatment of dwellings which straddle the border between billing authorities. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord in a few words that that wording does not detract from the flexibility the Secretary of State needs. At the same time it achieves the desired result. I thank my noble friend Lord Balfour for his intervention, which I found most helpful.
As I have said, I hope I can reassure the Committee on this matter in a few words. Such regulations exist now for the community charge. Similar regulations have also been laid under the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991 to enable the valuation of dwellings to proceed. I assure the Committee that the necessary regulations concerning these matters will be made in good time for the introduction of the council tax. The draft regulations that have been produced so far are now available in the Library. I hope that in view of that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am satisfied with that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 11 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Liability to tax determined on a daily basis]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("a daily") and insert ("an annual").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 19 and 20. The purpose of these amendments is to replace the daily calculations of liability with annual calculations of liability for the council tax.
As I am sure the Committee will accept, the poll tax has fallen for two broad reasons: first, because it was clearly unfair and, secondly, because it was almost impossible to collect. It is the latter issue that I wish to explore in this amendment. Why was the poll tax so hard to collect? Over and beyond the issue of fairness which my noble friend Lord McIntosh has explored, the poll tax was difficult to collect because—the Audit Commission reported this to this Chamber and to Members in another place—people moved.
Some 40 per cent. of people in shire districts, 50 per cent. in most cities and 60 per cent. in parts of London move each year. Trying to track them and bill them, with each entry and deletion of the register requiring three or four transactions by the local authority, caused considerable expense and contributed largely to the chaos caused by the uncollectable nature of the poll tax.
By retaining the poll tax element in this property poll tax—the council tax—the Government are perpetuating much of the same problem. Daily liability may be superficially fairer and is fine if people do not move. But then, of course, one may as well have annual liability. If we need daily liability precisely because people move, that is precisely the reason why the tax is almost impossible to collect.
At least under poll tax the sum which local authorities sought to collect was reasonably constant throughout the year. People just failed to pay it. Under the council tax the position will be far worse. Not only will local authorities have to track people on a daily basis, as with poll tax, but, given that the council tax is a property tax on to which has been grafted a discount scheme based on occupation as well as a rebate scheme based on income, it produces considerable complexity in calculation on a daily basis.
Perhaps I may give a couple of examples. The first is that of a mother in low-paid work with a son working three or four days a week in a shop, who moves in and out of home according to the affections of his girl friends and in and out of work according to the job market. Sometimes the mother may be eligible for a single person discount, which may or may not be more advantageous to her than a rebate. When the son moves in, she loses her discount but remains on rebate.
780
However, depending on the son's income and whether or not he is in work, she may or may not be better off claiming the second adult, low income rebate. Her bill may change every three to four weeks, but not by very much. It may well change by less than the administrative cost of recalculating and rebilling her daily liability. I can assure Ministers opposite, who may have been away from handling the financial affairs of local authorities for some years, that such cases are not uncommon.
The second example, which I offered at Second Reading, is the case of a putative student son. He finishes his degree at one university town, goes home for the summer, moves into a flat and then in the autumn moves on to a third city or town for postgraduate training. That son will have gone through three local authorities, four types of benefit rebate, five changes of address and six changes of status, all within six months. It is all, apparently, to be calculated on the basis of daily liability. It cannot be done.
In other words, under the council tax we have all of the problems of the poll tax in chasing daily liability. We have a whole new set of problems associated with the interlocking rebate discount scheme, which will be explored more fully in subsequent amendments, without a statutory register to map that complexity. We clearly need a property tax rather than a property poll tax. We clearly need rebates rather than rebates plus discounts. We clearly need fair rates.
I urge the Government not to be complacent about the problems and not to ignore yet again the warnings about how hard this tax will be to administer. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Baroness tell the Committee what she proposes for people or dwellings qualifying on the last day of the year? Are they to pay the tax for the other 364 days?
Baroness Hamwee: I have some sympathy with the amendment but it raises issues such as the point which the noble Lord has just mentioned. Under the rating system there was annual liability but when a property was sold the obligation could be resolved between the seller and purchaser of the property. That was easily done and the amount was included on the end of the completion statement. The proposal to make this an annual tax would be very unfair. Unless there was a change in the middle of the year, somebody would be bound to lose out to the benefit of someone else.
I apologise to the Committee, having said that I would not intervene on these amendments, but I shall allow myself occasionally to make the point that with a local income tax on a personal basis this sort of problem would not arise.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I cannot understand how an annual calculation would work. I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not reply to the question from my noble friend Lord Elton immediately because it was an interesting one. I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench has a good and clear answer because I hope that there will not be scope for a local authority to do what the local authority where I live

781
has done. I do not know whether or not its action was avoidable but I should have thought that it ought to have been. An old lady living in a village near my home did not pay her poll tax because she was puzzled by the fact that she had accumulated 47 demand books, which she piled up in the corner of her room. The reason for receiving so many books was that her circumstances kept changing. She did not realise that and was in despair until somebody helped her sort the matter out.
If the changes in circumstances described by the noble Baroness continued over a period of time, I do not see how a council could do anything other than keep sending new demands. I regard that as a serious problem but I hope that I shall hear that there are answers to it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Three points arise from the interesting debate on which the noble Baroness has launched us. I find it interesting to contemplate why the amendment should have been put down other than to explore some minor technical point. If I heard the noble Baroness correctly, the amendment would mean that people who became eligible for rebates in the course of a year would not qualify. I am sure that that is not what the party opposite intend. But that would be the result of the amendment. Clearly, that cannot be the case. While complexities arise where people move in and out of rebate, we have to accept that as one of the consequences of having rebates.
The second part of the noble Baroness's argument concerned the single person discount. The noble Baroness was, I believe, merely continuing the Labour Party's campaign on the subject. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to deal with the point.
I turn now to the property element of the tax. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that the legislation contains provisions, both for Scotland and for England and Wales, for apportioning rates between the buyer and seller of a house which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned, applied under the old rating system. I meant to raise the subject in my Second Reading speech but now is also an appropriate time. If that element were not calculated on a daily basis the person who owned a house at the beginning of the year—or the middle or the end, depending on which date was chosen—would pay the tax for the whole year. That was not how the old rating system worked. It would not be a fair method. I presume that the legislation contains provision for part-year calculations when a property changes hands.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lady Hamwee has hit the nail on the head. She is clearly right. There are considerable problems about calculation on a daily basis. In Oxford the poll tax register has suffered an 85 per cent. change within one year. That clearly creates a vast amount of unnecessary work, helps to create confusion and hinders payment. On the other hand, my noble friend is also right to say that it is hard to have proper provision for mobility in a calculation which is part property and part personal. If the noble Baroness believes that there is a satisfactory answer to
782
the problem I shall be interested to hear it. The property does not move; the person does. That is an argument for saying that maybe we still have not got this problem quite solved. That seems to me to be a pity.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It is worth putting on the record one other fact about this matter. One can talk, as did the noble Earl, of 85 per cent. changes. I have not studied the Oxford community charge register. My guess may be wrong, but my impression is that in the vast majority of areas the great majority of the population is stable. There is a high turnover among a minority of the population and occupancy of dwellings may change several times a year. Therefore it is possible to exaggerate the problem of the administrative cost of dealing with changes in circumstances during the year.
I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay and others who have spoken. It would be quite wrong not to have the possibility of adjusting a person's liability if his circumstances change. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, intended to suggest that as in a rent clause (or the opposite of it), there should be a downwards-only adjustment: the local authority would not be entitled to claim any increase if the circumstances change but the council tax payer would be entitled to any additional discounts or rebates. That would seem to me to be a very one-sided operation.
One comes back to the proposition that there will inevitably be complications if one is to have some means of tempering a tax to take account of people's ability to pay. After all, that is the main purpose of the substitution of a council tax for the poll tax. Those administrative costs are bound to be incurred. I very much oppose the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the amendments would result in liability for the council tax being determined on an annual basis rather than on a daily basis, as we propose. Originally, we approached the question of daily liability with an open mind. But following consultation—and as this short debate has shown —we came to believe that liability calculated on a daily basis provides the fairest base on which to assess liability for the council tax. It avoids the inequities that would result from annual liability. As so many of my noble friends have shown, if discounts were awarded for a full year based on the position at 1st April, people who qualified on 2nd April might have to wait a full year before they could receive any discount.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, produced an example—no doubt the first of many examples that we shall hear in the Committee stage —and often her examples are absolutely correct. I do not contest that this evening. But it is up to people to claim their discounts if they feel that they are entitled to them. For instance, under the old rates system, if a husband died half way through the year, there was no rebate for the rates that had been paid in the past.

783
My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised some interesting points about the benefits system and the attached rebates, which I have noted. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, offered some examples from Oxford and mentioned an 85 per cent. change in the community charge register. The whole point of the Bill is that it does not relate to a community charge. It will affect a far smaller proportion of the population than does the community charge. Students, who I expect played a great part in that 85 per cent. movement in Oxford, will be exempt. So already there will be a reduction in the number of people affected.
I said that we started off with an open mind but when we consulted with the local authority associations they unanimously favoured daily liability. The practitioners representing the associations have a detailed knowledge of local authority administrative procedures. They told us that there would be no overall administrative advantages to calculating liability on an annual basis. They agree that daily liability represents the most practical and fairest way of calculating the tax.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy wrote to confirm its support for daily liability. I quote a short extract from the letter:
"One area of accountability in respect of a local property tax is the ability to be able to relate the amount paid to the period of occupation. Computerised systems can adequately cope with daily liability and any attempts to introduce any other method of calculating liability should be resisted".
It is therefore difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, feels that liability based on an annual rather than a daily basis would be an advantage.
Finally, to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. When a house is sold, the liability for paying the council tax is taken on as from that day.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has been an extremely interesting, short debate. I thank those who have taken part. It partly surprised me in the comments from the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—though perhaps she more than other Members of the Committee shares a concern for administrative feasibility—that we seem to have overlooked the pattern of collection under the old rating system. With the rates, an annual bill for liability was sent out each year which fell on the occupier and if there was no occupier on the owner. The occupier, or in the absence of an occupier the owner, would pay in monthly instalments, usually 10 of them. If the occupier or owner had a low income, he or she would apply for rebate. Equally, if the property were unoccupied, given local circumstances and discretion, the owner might be eligible for half-rating.
That scenario worked entirely successfully for many years, indeed for decades. There was absolutely no problem in annual liability, monthly bills and individuals triggering a rebate or claim for half-rating if the property were unoccupied, as appropriate. In
784
other words, the responsibility for the payments and the calculations fell, in the sense of triggering the situation, on the occupier or owner and not on the local authority. That is my point of concern. The whole push of the Bill makes the local authority responsible for handling the administrative complexities. As I said, I welcomed the concern shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy.
As the Minister said, it is for the individual to claim the discount. An individual is of course entitled to claim a discount. Equally, if an individual has been receiving a discount and his circumstances change during the course of the year—for example, a single person discount or status discount no longer applies —the onus is on that individual to inform the local authority and have his liability changed.
Let us be clear. The Minister in another place on 27th November at Committee stage (col. 531 of Hansard) on repeated questioning made it clear that local authorities were expected to send out their bills net of discount and net of rebate where possible—for entirely honourable reasons. The point there was that the obligation was on the local authority and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, on the individual to trigger the application for discount.
At the heart of this debate is the issue identified by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is innate. There is a structural problem with this tax. Trying to combine a property tax which is simple to collect with a personal tax on people who move, complicated by problems of occupancy based on discounts, produces a set of calculations which will be extremely complex to track. I do not doubt that computers can calculate daily bills but for daily bills and daily liability to be accurate, the computer must know every change in circumstance (not only of income) relating to the main householder. It must also know the situation of the second person involved, including eligibility for discount and rebate; for example, second person, adult, low income status. That information has to be acquired by the local authority and fed into the software system.
I suggest that it is very unwise to overlook the administrative problems that will fall on local government. I repeat that the council tax is administratively more complex and structurally more complex to collect than the poll tax. Your Lordships may shake your heads; but, having talked this through with a number of members of finance departments in local government, I can assure noble Lords that they share this view. That is why I am moving the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I thought I had taken some care in explaining the view that we had consulted very carefully on this matter. This was not a dogmatic conclusion that the Government came to in a rush or in a moment of panic. We discussed it with local authority associations and they were unanimous. We received a letter from CIPFA saying that any other system should be resisted. I do not understand why the noble Baroness is getting so excited.
Are we to understand that the policy of the noble Baroness is that if a wife or a husband dies on the second day of the year from when the liability is

785
calculated, the partner surviving will not be entitled to discount for the rest of the year? This is very important and we need an answer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not thinking of this from the point of view of the local authority at all. I am thinking about it from the point of view of the person who is receiving the bill. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Strathclyde whether people will constantly receive updated bills which they do not know what to do about. My noble friend suggested that I was simply talking about benefit. My example was related to income, but are individual council tax payers going to get constantly amended bills under the system? I do not think the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will solve the problem at all. I do not think an annual bill would work. But I should like to know what will happen because we must not just consider what local authorities want. My local authority thought there was nothing wrong in sending a lady 47 bills, one after the other. It was she who found it difficult.
Lord Strathclyde: If there were any change of circumstance by a payer of the council tax, he or she would make that change known to the social security office, and the calculation would be on a daily basis to take account of the payment that would have to be made. I hope that that is clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not think that is at all clear. But this is an issue which we genuinely need to come back to at Report stage in order to clarify some of the administrative complexities that local government would experience.
The question that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, posed to me concerned what the liability would be if someone were unfortunate enough to lose their husband or wife in the course of the year. The situation would remain as it is with the rates: if an individual's circumstances changed, that could trigger a discount, but the presumption would be that the liability would be for the year, and the local authority could calculate it accordingly.
Lord Strathclyde: That would not be so under the way that this amendment is currently drafted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My advice was rather different from that given to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In any case, at this stage this is not an amendment which I wish to push to a vote. We shall want to explore this at Report stage. I seriously urge the Government to think about the complexity of calculating on a daily liability when, given that a poll tax element has been grafted on to a property element, household configurations may be changing every three or four weeks, and the work of the local authority in calculating bills will have to be done accordingly. The Government are very unwise to underestimate the amount of work and the number of problems that would be generated for local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 14, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 inclusive.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("valuation band") and insert ("individual value").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 15 proposes individual valuations in place of bands. To some extent, we are anticipating arguments that we hope to explore more fully later on under Clause 5. Perhaps I may remind the Committee why we believe that the system of banding proposed in the Bill is deeply unfair.
First, this is virtually a flat rate tax in most of the country. Most of the North is in the bottom two bands while much of the South East is in the top three bands. For example, 60 per cent. of properties in St. Helens, 61 per cent. in Barrow, and 68 per cent. in Hull are in band A. Indeed, I have calculated that about 46 per cent. of properties will fall in just two bands. That is virtually a flat-rate property levy and is therefore regressive.
Secondly, the tax is regressive in another way within bands. If one takes three properties with values of £39,000, £42,000 and £50,000, there is £3,000 difference between the first two properties; but on a headline council tax of £400 there is nearly £50 a year difference. But those with properties of a value of £42,000 and £50,000 (which is a difference of £8,000) are paying the same. In other words, in each band the cheaper properties are overvalued and the more expensive properties are undervalued. There are greater differences within bands, although they are paying the same, than there are between bands although they are paying differently.
The third reason why we seek to have individual valuations rather than banding is because such banding is inevitably inaccurate at the boundaries. By definition, statistically a third of all properties are going to be within the bottom £2,000 or top £2,000 of a band. For example, in my own authority most of the Victorian partly-modernised terraced housing would be on the £40,000 band, and many of the post-war council houses that have been sold would be on the £52,000 band. Whether they are above it or below it will depend on whether they have done £2,000 worth of extra work on an extended kitchen, a second small shower or a brick-built conservatory.
How will the valuers know? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that there will be no internal inspections, not even individual external inspections, not even street-by-street on-foot inspections, not even street-by-street inspections by car. Many valuers will gaze at a photograph which may have been taken for the local building firm's calendar four years previously. Therefore, those wanting to pay less

787
council tax will appeal to go down, and those wanting to sell their property and affirm its value will appeal to go up.
This amendment will take account of an individual property and assess its worth. It will take account of improvements made or, indeed, the environment in which the property is placed, such as how close it is to the fish and chip shop or to the park. It gives householders a basis on which to judge relevant household payments.
The Government may say, as the Minister has already indicated, that bands will reduce complexity. That is so, but that complexity will be shifted on to the appeal system and we shall see the same backing up on the appeal system as we see in terms of non-payment of poll tax in the magistrates' courts.
Secondly, the Minister may say, as was said in another place, that the difference between two bands, say £267 and £311, is relatively small. So in many cases was the 20 per cent. poll tax contribution. If it is unfair —and under the poll tax people have a heightened sense of what is fair —there will be an appeal.
Banding valuation is wrong not just because it is a flat rate across much of the country, regressive within bands and inaccurate at the boundaries, but also in terms of the structure of the council tax because the relativities between bands are not properly and fairly progressive and proportionate. As a result, contributions to the council tax will not be properly and fairly progressive and proportionate.
Across the country as a whole the bands are artificially compressed so that cheaper properties pay too much and more expensive properties pay too little. Within local authorities the bands are artificially compressed so that cheaper properties pay too much and more expensive properties pay too little. Within each band values are artificially compressed so again cheaper properties pay too much and more expensive properties pay too little. Given the disproportionate contributions by band to the total council tax, families on lower incomes will pay proportionately more and families on higher incomes will pay proportionately less. And this is a tax which the Government call fair. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Baroness was right to point out areas in which the Bill may introduce complexity of administration. I admire the Bill for the simplicity and coherence of its structure. I hope that there will be a degree of simplicity in its administration. The noble Baroness made an interesting point about which I wish to think more. She emphasised that as regards diminutions the local authorities must take the initiative. I do not know whether that is right or whether the householder must take the initiative. However, that is not the point being addressed in this amendment.
Surely, the banding system has the great merit of simplicity. The question is whether it carries with it any great degree of unfairness. Clearly, divisions within bands will create boundaries and a small displacement will put one into a different band. That cannot be disputed. However, far from being disparate, the bands appear to go up at intervals of 30
788
per cent. until the highest band at which there is an increase of 100 per cent. A 30 per cent. interval seems to be entirely reasonable. The bands in the tax payable go up at intervals of approximately 15 per cent. That is a matter which the noble Baroness will no doubt address when speaking to a subsequent amendment.
The matter is simple. The noble Baroness says that she is aware of local authorities in which 60 per cent. of the houses fall within a single band. Well, so much the better. It means that 60 per cent. of the houses are worth almost the same within a margin of 30 per cent. That position is admirably simple and means that local authorities can press the same button on the computer in order to spew out all the forms necessary to collect the council tax. That is simplicity itself; it is the benefit which the Bill brings. There may be some inequities but I do not see what they are.
I respect the point made by the noble Baroness that if the tax is to succeed it must be simple to collect. The amendment addresses the simplicity of administration. That is the justification for the bands and it is the reason why it would be regressive to return to individual valuations as advocated by the noble Baroness. Such a return would lead to all kinds of elaborations. Imagine the problems of valuing every house anew at this stage—no doubt there will be appeals—and compare that with the simplicity of assigning houses to the bands. If 60 per cent. of the houses in one area fall within the same band it will be easy to achieve the valuations in that area. Therefore, I do not believe that in this amendment the noble Baroness has the interests of simplicity on her side.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for his exceedingly clear intervention. His remarks were right in every aspect. His intervention refers to a previous amendment but has relevance in this case. The starting point for levying the tax assumes that the property contains two people. Any deviation will arise in two ways. Local authorities will gather a great deal of intelligence in preparation for the tax. As that intelligence is gathered it will be applied. In addition, if there is a deviation from a property containing two people and any change of circumstance it will be for the person affected by that change to make application for a modified bill. On that basis the provision is simple. There will be an obligation to report any change of circumstance whether that incurs a larger or a smaller bill. The obligation will be on the part of the applicant.
The noble Baroness and her colleagues advocate a rating system by which evaluations will be based, first, on capital values. So, when the market is buoyant, capital values will increase, but when it is not, the values will decrease. Secondly, they will be based on rental values so that when a house owner adds a room to his home the rental capacity increases thereby increasing the bill. Thirdly, repair costs will be taken into account which will affect the bill levied on a household. Fourthly, they will be based on rebuilding costs so that when the construction industry is buoyant, rebuilding costs will increase and therefore the bill will increase; however, when the industry is in

789
the doldrums the bill will decrease. When that system is compared with the system advocated in the Bill there is no contest.
A banded approach to valuations means that the worst excesses of the old rating system can be avoided. Banding ensures that the council tax is fair for all. Everyone will make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of local government services but nobody will face an excessive bill. That is because the bill for a family living in the most expensive property in an area can be no more than three times its bill if it lived in the cheapest property in the area.
Members of the Committee will understand that the provision does not mean that the better off will pay less than their fair share towards the cost of local government services. Only 15 per cent. of the cost will fall on the council tax. The remaining 85 per cent. will be funded through business rates and national taxation. That will ensure that those who can afford to pay the most will do so through national taxation and through local taxation by being at the top end of the band.
Members of the Committee opposite need to grasp the important fact that a banded system does not require precise valuations of each property. That fact bears repeating. Valuers will need to establish in which of the broad bands each property should be placed. The precise valuations called for in the amendment do not need to be known and will not be known. The use of bands is quicker and cheaper than producing precise figures based on a convoluted evaluation system. All homes will have been banded in good time for the introduction of the council tax on 1st April 1993. The requirement of individual valuations based on capital values would mean delaying the introduction of the council tax. That is not something that we wish to countenance.
The task of producing capital valuations pales into insignificance compared with the valuation approach proposed by Members of the Committee opposite. It would be interesting to know how long they believe a valuation based on their approach would take to complete, the cost of that valuation and the rolling annual cost.
Banding will also avoid large numbers of appeals as people seek to reduce their bill through small reductions in their valuation, a point made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that we could argue at length about the precise valuation of our homes, especially when that could lead to a reduction in our tax bills. By contrast people will quickly recognise and in most cases agree the band in which they believe their home should be placed. We recognise that there will be some difficult cases and that is why a full appeals procedure will be provided.
A system of local government finance based on broad bands of capital value is the right way forward. I have no doubt that Members of the Committee will join with me in rejecting the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: We have returned to the trade off between fairness and simplicity in the administration of the tax. That is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is making. I do not wish to put
790
words into her mouth but Members on these Benches have no doubt about the banding approach. We understand that it does not require individual inspection and so forth. I do not wish to repeat the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The reaction which she fears will be provoked on the part of potential taxpayers has led her to propose this amendment. Leaving aside the fairness argument, I believe that she has a good point as regards administration.
7 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am filled with horror at the thought of returning to individual valuations. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not bear any responsibility for the policies of her party. However, if there were individual valuations, it would be necessary to have frequent revaluations. There is no doubt about that. One advantage of the banding system is that, although local government retains the right to have revaluations if that becomes necessary, the system does not depend on a quinquennial revaluation, as did the old system. The problem was that those quinquennial valuations did not take place and, therefore, the problem became worse.
I repeat a point which I made at Second Reading of the 1988 Act. Since the war no Labour Government ever had the guts to undertake a revaluation in England and Wales. Every time it fell to a Conservative Government to do that. The only reason that that was not done in the early 1980s was that the Green Paper had been published on local government finance and it did not seem sensible to have a revaluation if there was to be a thorough reform. However, it does not lie in the mouths of Front Bench spokesmen opposite to argue for individual valuations, which would require regular revaluations, when their party never had the guts to do that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am opposed to returning to the old valuation system. I always appealed against my rates. Wherever I lived, I always appealed against the valuation. Each time I moved house, I appealed again. I was a terrible nuisance to the valuation officer. I considered it my right to be so. However, in order to have one's rating appeal heard, one sometimes had to wait two or three years. There was an enormous queue of people picking on tiny points.
I always thought that under the old system it was wrong that a person who had saved money to improve his house—for example, to install central heating—then had to pay more tax because he had used his hard-earned money to do that. If the house was allowed to decay, it became worth less, the notional rent became less attractive and it was possible to apply for a reduction in the rateable value. That was quite wrong. The system was wrong on two grounds: first, the individual valuation was never fair; secondly, the system was cumbersome, time-consuming and extremely expensive.
My husband sits on valuation rating appeals and I hear the other side of the story from him. He is one of many people in this country who receive something

791
like £7 per day to hear those cases. Therefore, the system relies largely upon the goodwill of such people. If those people were paid more realistically, that would mean an enormous expense. He complains about people like myself who continue to press some painful point and are determined to see the matter through to the bitter end. They take up many hours of court time. Therefore, I believe that banding is a good answer for it means that people quibbling over £50 or £100 will not appeal because, even if they did appeal, they would remain in the same band. I believe the system of broad banding will be extremely effective.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this mini-debate. First, I take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She was entirely right in her response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. On the Opposition Benches we are trying to balance the need for administrative simplicity against fairness to the individuals concerned. That is our view.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that the bands were simple but he asked whether they were fair. Whenever there are boundaries, there will be problems on either side of the boundary. That is the consequence of the Government adopting a system of valuation based on boundaries. By definition the problems as regards simplicity will be transferred from assessment to appeal. By any statistical distribution a third of all properties will be within £2,000 of the top or bottom of a band. If that makes a difference of some 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the council tax payable, then people will appeal, whereas if they are charged perhaps an extra £10 because they have installed central heating then they may not think it worthwhile to appeal.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: If one-third of the people involved are in a position in which they can appeal, does that not then reduce the potential number of appeals to one-third? Is that not the point which my noble friend was making? Therefore, shall we not be better off?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously, under the old rating system a proportion of people appealed. I believe that we were dealing with quite modest statistics, although I cannot recall them at present. However, I should be surprised if the percentage of domestic appeals were in double figures. Under the new system it will probably be worthwhile for one-third of property owners to appeal. We may not see that and I hope we do not.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not wish to argue about the figure of one-third although I believe I could do. However, I wish to argue with the idea that that one-third will come from the top and bottom of the range. Surely those householders at the top of the range will not appeal because the likely result is that they will move up into the next band. It cannot be in their interests to appeal. Therefore, the suggested figure of one-third immediately becomes one-sixth.
Baroness Blatch: This Bill requires one valuation at the outset and infrequent valuations thereafter. Therefore, most of the appeals will be in the early stages, after the first valuation. By and large, once those appeals are dealt with, the relativity of the value between one house and another will remain the same for a long time. It will be stable.
The noble Baroness advocates a system in which every single household must be assessed on a combination of factors, all of which are highly sensitive to an increase or decrease in valuations. That will be done on a rolling programme of annual valuations. Householders will not understand a common yardstick because there will not be one. Under the old system, one reason that my noble friend Lady Gardner was such a pain to the valuation department was because she was not entirely au fait with the mysterious way in which the valuation was arrived at in the first place. That is a problem of the system advocated by the noble Baroness. Therefore, not only would there be difficulties in the first instance but it would be an annual challenge for people to appeal against their valuations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I was not saying that one-third of householders would appeal. I was saying that statistically one-third of properties would fall in the bottom £2,000 or top £2,000 of a band. People who appeal will not know where they are within a band. In fact, they may appeal to try to ascertain their property value in conjunction with the band. Someone about to sell a property may believe that his property has a value which is different from that of a neighbouring property. If he is in a band whose value is below that for which he wishes to sell his property, he will seek to appeal upwards. Others may seek to appeal downwards. I believe that there will be movement in both directions. I tried to make that point at the outset.
As regards the Minister's response, to say that banding is fairer than individual valuations is like saying that there should not be individual assessment of income for rebates but that that should be broad-banded; for example, it may be said, "Let us take an income of £20 per week" or, "Let us take an income of £30 per week", because that will be simpler.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness puts an interpretation on what I said which is wholly wrong. Rebate systems are particularly sensitive to the circumstances of individuals. We expect those systems to be highly sensitive and to be dealt with on a daily basis. We have already said that we should require a system which is highly sensitive to the particular circumstances of individuals. This amendment deals with valuations of properties within bands.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely accept that point. However, the fact remains that if the argument for banding is fair then it applies in most areas of social policy.
The point is that properties differ. Without having internal inspections, valuers are not in a position to do other than put houses into bands. But individual

793
properties vary. That is why, when one walks down any street and finds "for sale" signs, each property will carry a different price. It is precisely for that reason that we believe that in terms of the council tax those properties should enter into the relativities with individual valuations. In the same way as no estate agent would assume that all properties in the same street have the same market price when they come to sell—they will discriminate on issues of improvement and the like—so that is the argument we are urging; that is, that properties vary in quite sensitive ways. That is precisely why individual valuations should take place. I believe that the noble Baroness made my point for me.
Secondly, in terms of administrative simplicity I repeat and accept that there will be some original simplicity. The fact that many valuations are being done for less than £2 a time suggests that all we will obtain is a rough and ready, broad and simple, crude and vulgar valuation. That simply shifts the problem on to the appeal system. I should have thought Members of the Committee would perceive how fragile an instrument that is when we consider the problems of collecting the poll tax.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, welcomed the fact that perhaps 60 per cent. of properties, particularly in some of the northern cities, may fall into one band. He suggested that was fair. I must urge the Committee to accept that if, as I try to suggest, in almost half of all local authorities half of their property falls into two bands, then one does not have a progressive tax; it is a flat rate tax. That may be welcomed and thought fair and desirable, but it is not a progressive tax. It is a flat rate tax.
The problem with the flat rate tax is that though the property values may vary by little, incomes vary much more. One point that has been urged time and again from our side is that within the total range of bands there is only a 1:3 ratio, whereas incomes vary by something like 1:7.
A point was made regarding contributions through income tax. It was said that the valuation bands did not need to be particularly sensitive because a small proportion of local authority spend was coming from council tax and a high proportion from central taxation and, of course, from the business rate, which is a local tax nationally hijacked by central government. My point on that is that Ministers play the income tax card to suit themselves. When we hear about the four strapping sons all in work paying the same as the elderly widow it is not suggested by Members opposite that those four strapping sons are paying their way through the income tax system. But when it comes to the rough and ready crudities of a banding system the Minister will tell us that that can be compensated through the more sensitive adjustments of the income tax system. It would be helpful to us on this side—I say that in all humility—if we had a consistent view from Ministers about the appropriateness of income tax when it is brought into play in the arguments of contribution to local authority spend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, made a point about improvements. To paraphrase her
794
comment, she said that if somebody had saved up their hard-earned money to make an improvement, why should they be penalised? That is not essentially different from somebody who has saved their hard-earned money to buy a better house. Why should they be penalised? If a person is enjoying a significantly and substantially improved house as a result of an improvement, then that should be reflected—given a property tax—in the liability of contribution to the local authority.
With regard to the points on discounts that we are arguing to and fro, perhaps the Committee will allow me to come back to that later. Given the hour, I shall not press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("is") and insert ("and individual value are").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 16 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. I shall be brief. I hope that the Minister will support them.
The amendments require that liable persons be notified of the valuation ascribed to their dwellings. Under the provisions of the Bill neither the local authority nor the valuation officer are required to notify people of the band into which their property has been placed. It is a simple amendment.
The only duty of the local authority at the moment is to make the valuation list available for inspection at the main office. Unless people exercise that right of inspection the first that they will know of the band into which their property has been placed will be when they receive their council tax bill. That seems to us to be prima facie unreasonable. We therefore urge the Committee and the Minister to agree that people should be notified of the band into which their property has been placed. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is making an attempt, albeit brief, to impose a detail of her advocated system onto a system which we believe is more straightforward, simple, fair and more easily understood.
As I said earlier, the Government take the view that the individual valuation of dwellings for the council tax would be unnecessary, expensive and, because of the spurious accuracy of such valuations—in other words, within a band —vulnerable to unwarranted appeals.
Members of the Committee have already accepted our arguments by rejecting Amendment No. 15. Rather, the balance of the debate was very much in favour of rejecting that amendment. I did not notice around the Chamber too much support for the noble Baroness in her amendment and shall not repeat the arguments. However, the noble Baroness may wish to test the opinion of the Committee at some point.
Although valuation lists will be available for public inspection from December 1992, the bills sent to council tax payers will be the first notification of banding for most households. We expect the first

795
council tax bills, however, to be sent out in March 1993. We therefore expect that people will have been informed of the band in which their home has been placed before the first day on which they become liable to pay council tax.
On the advice of the local authority associations we took the decision not to require early notification of banding to each liable person after the draft valuation list is made public in December 1992. Local authorities, the organisations best placed to issue such notifications, advised us that they could not guarantee to have software in place in time and it was suggested that such a requirement might delay the implementation of the council tax.
Where there are any subsequent alterations to the valuation list, the listing officer will always write and confirm any change. Liable persons will, of course, have the right of appeal against any such alterations.
I hope that the Committee will agree, on reflection, that the amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may add a point to the debate before the noble Baroness replies. I understand the reasons why there should not be individual notification. In view of the timescale of the whole operation that is probably inevitable.
However, there is another reason. To know one's own valuation without knowing what has happened to anybody else is of precious little value and purpose. The lists will become available and be made public. No doubt people will want to pop along to libraries and town halls to see not just their own valuation but whether the houses nearby are in the same band. That will be a much more useful piece of information than merely having one piece of paper saying that one is in band D or E. That will not mean anything to anyone. It is the opportunity to see what band the house next door is in that will be useful.
If one cannot view an individual notification and people want to see where they stand, it will be more useful for them to be able to go to see where everybody else is and whether in those circumstances the banding is fair. The suggestions in the amendments are therefore probably unnecessary and unhelpful.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness responds to both my points and those of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, perhaps I may say that that is a fundamental point missed by Members on the Opposition Benches throughout the whole of the debate on valuations; that it is important that houses in bands above one's own home are, by and large, worth more and that those in bands below are worth less. In other words, what is essential is knowledge that the relativities of the valuation of one property as compared with another are in the right order.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The opening remarks of the Minister were directed to Amendment No. 15 on the grounds that it had been rejected. As we are not discussing Amendment No. 15, and as it was not rejected, I shall not speak to it.
I shall stay with the amendments moved and spoken to—Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. A
796
government that is pressing on the public The Citizen's Charter did not place copies in public libraries or town halls for people to consult but posted copies to each individual household. At various points when we have had planning Bills and so on—and I pay credit to the Ministers concerned—the need to notify the public individually was accepted. I do not refer to individual valuations. I refer to the valuation band into which the property has been placed on the basis of which one's liability for council tax has to be calculated. I find it extraordinary that one is not to be personally notified. What does the Citizen's Charter mean? What does empowering citizens mean? What does local government accountability mean when citizens do not know what valuation band they are in until they receive their first bill through the door?
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Baroness explain what she means by stating that citizens will not be notified? Everyone will be notified of the bands. The noble Baroness is speaking of when that notification takes place. The noble Baroness was talking when I made the point that local authority associations have argued against the provision that the noble Baroness seeks in these amendments.
The banding for houses will also be on public display. If someone wishes to find out, it will therefore be possible to do so. What information is being withheld from the citizen?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Had I been able to complete what I was trying to say I believe that the point might have been addressed. We are arguing that when property has been placed into its original valuation band, people are entitled to know that band.
I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. If people feel uneasy about the valuation and wish to find out how it relates to other valuations, they can consult further. However, it seems entirely right and proper that individuals are entitled to know at the earliest possible stage their position on the valuation band.
On the issue of complexity, the Minister earlier urged that it was administratively simple through the computer to do elaborate and complicated calculations of interlocking rebates and discounts on a daily basis. However, she then finds it apparently complicated and administratively not feasible to notify people of the band into which their property has been placed at the earliest possible opportunity. I fail to comprehend that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, she has become masterly in the skill of putting words into my mouth. It is extremely important that I put on the record exactly what I said.
The bills that are put out to properties will deem that there shall be a property tax—which is 50 per cent. of the bill—and that there are two people in the household. Any deviation from that will be for the authority itself voluntarily to collect intelligence on that matter, and for the applicant to apply for any deviation from that.

797
The noble Baroness stated that I argued for complex daily calculations. We did not. First, we responded to a very sincere request from the local authority associations that they wished to operate on a daily basis. Secondly, we on these Benches said that where the personal circumstances of an individual change—the noble Baroness referred now to the rebate system—we should have a system that responds as sensitively as possible. In other words, where someone qualifies for a reduction in their bills or an increase in the rebate, it is important that the system responds as sensitively as possible. The local authorities said that if they were allowed to calculate on a daily basis—neither complicated, convoluted, nor, as the noble Baroness said, impossible—they could be more sensitive and could respond to people's changed circumstances more quickly and effectively.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to intervene. The Minister returns to an earlier amendment; I do not believe that it is a good idea. My understanding is that local authority associations were asked a rather different question: would it be easier to operate the system with a discount structure on a daily or annual basis? If they had been asked a question without the issue of a discount structure involved, their response would have been that they would prefer an annual basis. I do not believe that it is a matter we ought to pursue now. It is an issue to which we might return at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
('(3) For the purposes of making any determination in accordance with subsection (2) above, a billing authority may request such information as appears to it to be reasonable to enable it to carry out its duties in accordance with paragraph 11A of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 155, which raises the issue of a register. To some extent we are returning to some of the same issues of administrative practicality that were raised in relation to daily and annual liability.
I suggest that local authorities will need to keep a register for three reasons. First—an issue which I believe was not explored in another place—local authorities will have to calculate in advance the number of discounts falling within each tax band during the period September to December this year. Personal and status discounts look set to vary between local authorities by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. across the country. In my local authority it looks as though about 44 per cent. of households will have a status or personal discount. Those discounts have to be attributed to each valuation band in order for local authorities to be able to determine and report to the DoE the revenue base generated by a council tax at standard spending assessment so that theoretically the revenue support grant can compensate in lieu.
For the local authority to return information to the DoE on the number of discounts falling in each property valuation band will require a full and
798
detailed canvass interlocking the configuration of each household with its property band. I suggest that it is critically important for local authorities to get that calculation correct. The figures seem to be highly sensitive to error. For example, in my authority if 50 per cent. rather than 44 per cent. of households are eligible for a single person discount at the headline tax but the local authority has failed to have the accurate figures reported, it would mean a loss to the local authority of £0.5 million on a budget of about £15 million. That is no mean sum. To return accurate figures to the DoE on the basis of which local authorities would receive their revenue support grant requires a register.
Secondly, the hierarchy of liability is so complex that no one—certainly not the local authority—can know who is responsible for paying what. To locate responsibility, for example, local authorities will need to register who among three single adults, friends who share a flat, is the liable tenant and who is responsible for the bills. That takes place in a culture of non-payment. Local authorities will have to pursue energetically the payment of bills.
Thirdly, the amount of the bill will be determined by the interaction of discounts and rebates. Local authorities will need a register to establish that.
Let us consider a straightforward example. There are two different names in a household. I was going to suggest John Smith, but under the circumstances perhaps I ought to say David Smith, and Mary Black. The two names are on the electoral register. What is the financial implication for the council tax? They may be partners and cohabitees. In that case, they will be expected to pay a two-person bill with possible rebates on his income. But if she has no income of her own, she is not eligible for a rebate or a discount as a second person. That is one calculation based on the knowledge that they are cohabitees.
Equally, they may be two friends who are not cohabitees. In that case, those same two names in the household will pay a two person bill but with the option of a rebate on his income or a low income discount on hers as a second adult.
Those two people may be an elderly father and a widowed or divorced daughter with her own earnings. In that case, there might be a rebate on his income perhaps offset by a non-dependent adult deduction on her income.
Those two names might indicate a householder with a student lodger who is invisible; it is therefore a one-person bill. Finally, both of them may be students, in which case the entire property is exempt. They will pay nothing. Those are entirely plausible possibilities based on a simple example of two people with different surnames in one household. For the local authority to establish what they should pay it will need to keep a register. Somehow local government has to map those configurations because it is supposed to send the bills out net of discounts and, where possible, net of rebates, as was emphasised by the Minister, Mr. Portillo, in Committee in another place on 27th November 1991. Another member of the Standing Committee had stated (at col. 531) that,

799
"the Government were not pretending that any effort would be made to establish where single-person discounts were applicable and that a large number of inaccurate bills would be sent out."
Mr. Portillo then said:
"I should like to correct that. We are encouraging local authorities to take reasonable steps to discover in advance who is likely to claim a discount. They may look at the community charge register or they may wish to conduct a canvass",
and so on. The Minister made it very clear that in advance of sending out the Bill and in order to acquire eligibility for the full revenue support grant that they will seek to get, local authorities would need to determine the exact status of those two people in those five possible households that I have suggested. The only way to overcome that is obviously to scrap the discounts and go for a more generous rebate scheme, as we on this side of the Committee have been urging.
However, given that the Government at the moment have locked themselves into this incredible complexity of interlocking rebates and discounts on a property tax, then local government will need a register, a canvass, a record, a list, or whatever one cares to call it. Yet the Data Protection Registrar has warned local authorities that they could be breaking the law if they maintain that register for all adults for the purpose of the council tax. But local authorities will need to do so to get their grant, to establish liability, to send out bills net of discount and rebates, to avoid fraud and to calculate on a daily liability. The whole will generate resentment, resistance, confrontation, fear of snooping, claims of invasion of privacy.
We on these Benches dislike this because we would rather it was not necessary. It would not be necessary if government were not going for this structurally flawed tax. However, given that it is necessary then this amendment seeks to make it legal and legitimate for local authorities to have a register. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Surely almost all the points requested in Amendments Nos. 21 and 155 are covered in Clauses 27 and 28, for the English provisions, or if it applied to Scotland—Schedule 2 is referred to—in Clauses 90 and 91. No matter what type of local government tax we have, if it is involved with persons and property then the local authority or the Inland Revenue, or whatever authority it is, must have that information. It must be able to obtain it and have the right to ask householders for the information that is being asked for in the amendments on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Earl makes an important point. He is pointing to the fact that far more thought appears to have gone into how inquiries are established with regard to property than with regard to the personal element of the tax. I am sorry if I gave the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, such a fright when I started. As he knows, and as I have said in previous debates, we on these Benches do not see that it is sensible for the Government to have taken the line that they have with regard to the register. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has made important points about the need to collect information in order for the tax to be administered both properly and fairly.
800
I suggest that there is another problem. The Government say that the onus is on the claimant to claim a discount. That seems to me to lead to an extra step in this process. The Bill will go out before information has been collected—because no information will be collected in a formal manner involving the individuals—and the taxpayer will realise that there is a liability. Generally there will be increasing public awareness about the tax; the taxpayer will realise that there may be the possibility of a discount and will claim. That will delay payment of the tax. If it means extra steps in the processing of the tax by the local authority it will add to delays in payment and it will add to cashflow problems and will result in the sort of confusion that we are all aware happens only too easily. Local authority officials, tasked with getting out enormous numbers of bills in a short period of time—while they are still of course trying to collect poll tax and rates—perhaps push the computer button a couple of times and the computer spews them out twice. They are then followed by another couple of bills, and so on. One then gets the sort of situation that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, described earlier this afternoon.
There are very good reasons for supporting this amendment. The attitude of the treasurer of Birmingham City Council has already been referred to in this Chamber. He said, "Whatever the Department of the Environment says, I am going to have a council tax register". I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am not in favour of this amendment for several reasons. One is that I support the civil liberties argument that there should be no unnecessary keeping of registers. I consider this to be an unnecessary keeping of a register because the onus is on the person to apply for a reduction and to prove that he or she is a one-person household rather than a two-person household. Therefore, those cases will automatically present themselves. Of course, there will have to be some sort of record of the fact that that person has so applied. But that is different from a complete and total register, which I understand is the suggestion.
I have already made the point at a previous stage of this debate, that Westminster Council knows already that one in two households in Westminster is a single-person household. If local authorities do not know that in respect of their own districts presumably they will send out a bill for the total amount and then the people concerned will apply. But very few private individuals pay their total charges to their local authority, whatever form of charges they are—whether rates, community charge, or, as now, this new council tax. Very few people pay the tax in one lump sum. Most of them spread it over 10 payments in the year. Therefore, there would certainly only be a hardship of one-tenth of the 25 per cent. that would be deducted if one had paid the first original instalment in toto.
Where I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has raised a very interesting point is in the biennial budget for the Department of the Environment. I do not understand the technicalities of that well enough and I ask the Minister to comment on it. If it is true

801
that it would be very difficult to work out how much authorities will get in their grant then that is a problem and the department should look at some other way of dealing with that. For example, in many businesses there is a budget for what is estimated will be spent in a year, then at the end of the year there is a reassessment on the basis of what was actually spent —or what was really collected, in the case of councils. Perhaps there is some other way that the Department of the Environment could consider. I thought that the noble Baroness raised a very interesting point.
I am not in favour of the other point concerning the practicalities and the need for a register, but I should like to know how the Government would deal with this special spending assessment.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may first of all address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I have to say that much of what she said was conflating two distinct issues: the council tax and how that is going to be assessed and the benefits that a resident will be entitled to claim. As regards the council tax, a local authority will have a duty to use the knowledge that it possesses in drawing up its estimates. If it does not know particular details about a house it will submit a bill to the liable person based on a two-person household. That is clear. As regards the benefit side of the equation, it is up to the resident of a household to claim the benefit that he thinks he is entitled to. There is no mystery about that system. I cannot accept that a register in the form set out by the noble Baroness is in any sense required in the Bill.
The amendments would give local authorities power to request information in order to enable them to carry out their duties under the Bill. The Government have been considering this matter carefully. We are concerned to ensure that local authorities should not gather more information than they need. On the other hand, we recognise that it is reasonable for a billing system to record the names of those to whom bills will be sent.
My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities addressed this question in another place. He was considering the use which local authorities were proposing to make of Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That gives local authorities a wide power to require information about occupiers of land and others having an interest in it. My honourable friend said that he was considering disapplying that power for council tax purposes and that he would be consulting the local authority associations on it.
We have indeed been consulting the local authority associations and our discussions are still continuing. As part of those discussions we have been considering whether, if Section 16 is to be disapplied, there is a case for replacing it with an information power more closely tailored to the needs of the council tax. We have asked the associations what they would like such a power to provide if the Government were minded to provide it. We are still awaiting a reply on that point. When we have their views—and we have asked for them as a matter of urgency—we shall consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce a specific information power. I suggest therefore that it might be
802
appropriate if the noble Baroness were to withdraw her amendment and return to the subject, if necessary, on Report.
Before concluding my remarks perhaps I may address the question raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. So far as concerns discounts, it will be up to the local authority to make an assessment or an estimate—its best estimate—of discounts in its area based on the information it has at its disposal, which is fairly considerable, as she will appreciate. The RSG will take that estimate into account. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What is the difference between the canvass that the Minister in another place, Mr.Portillo, encouraged local authorities to conduct, and the record that would follow such a canvass? What is the difference between that record and a register?
Earl Howe: The difference is very wide. The local authority is looking for liable people. The information that a local authority will need consists perhaps of three elements; the property, the liable person and whether or not discount applies to that property. That is a different matter from the full-scale register such as we have for the community charge.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am entirely unpersuaded by the Minister's distinction. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. If a local authority has to canvas in order to find out not only who is the liable person but also the nature of the household in terms of whether it is eligible for discount, that is in my view a register.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already responded to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on Clauses 27 and 28, which refer to information about properties and not about persons. Perhaps the noble Earl will accept that that is why we proposed the amendments and why they are necessary. It is very often said by Members of the Committee opposite that the onus will be on the individual to claim the discount. The individual is entitled to claim a discount that has been overlooked but I repeat the point —Mr. Portillo made it clear time and again in another place—that for good administrative reasons—I do not suggest otherwise—the expectation would be that the local authority would, on the basis of a canvass, know in advance, or would seek to ascertain in advance, the number of discounted householders in its area. Using that it would not only be able to return figures to the DoE but send out the bills. That is clear in cols. 531 and 532 of the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings in another place.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for raising the issue of civil liberties. She is entirely right. I hoped that we had made it clear that we do not welcome a register. However, the consequence of building in a discount system and of needing to lock that into a rebate scheme, knowing that people may move between the two—that is what the Bill ensures—is that one has to have the information to avoid fraud. Registers may not be

803
good but secret registers which people cannot inspect but which will certainly be kept by local authorities are much worse. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the treasurer of Birmingham council. I have checked with several—
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may address that point. My advice is that there would probably be difficulties under the Data Protection Act for any kind of register that incorporated more information than was required for the purposes of the council tax.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is entirely correct. I made the point in my opening remarks that it would be disallowed by the Data Protection Registrar. He has warned local authorities of precisely that. With the five examples of two names in a household, the only way the local authority could ascertain what the proper bill should be is by having quite detailed and explicit information about the nature of cohabitation, eligibility for rebates to second person adults of low income status, individual discounts and the like. Unless local authorities have that information they will not be able to ascertain that the bill people pay is the proper one.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Baroness agree that it is up to the person in the house, whether a liable person or another adult, to submit evidence for a claim for rebate? It is not up to local authorities to acquire that information about individuals willy-nilly across their areas.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may turn the question back to the Minister. Does she accept that as the Bill is structured a person may have a single person discount? If, however, a person is better off claiming rebates he may switch. The local authority has to establish the number of discounts in its area in order to claim compensation through the revenue support grant. Whether an individual woman—for example, a lone parent—claims a discount as a single householder or claims rebate, which may be financially more advantageous to her, will depend on a quite complicated assessment of her income. She will have to make that decision. The local authority, however, will have to know which of the two she will claim and will have to have that information registered in order to obtain the grant that it is entitled to receive, because although the rebates will be compensated for by the Department of the Environment up to a figure of 95 per cent., the discount will not be compensated for except through the grant structure.
I hope the Minister accepts that these decisions about discounts cannot be isolated, much as he may wish it, from the information about rebates. The two interlock, as I have tried to establish, at almost every point along the way. That is precisely why local authority treasurers around the country are saying that, even though they do not wish to, local authorities will have to maintain a register in order to prevent fraud and to ensure that the situation is handled in an administratively straightforward way.
However, we have probably gone as far as we can today. The Minister was kind enough to say that he
804
was in consultation with local authorities to discuss the question of an information power. Can he say whether he will be able to tell us before Report stage what the progress of those discussions has been? That will influence Members on this side of the Committee as to whether they wish to press this issue to a vote tonight.
Earl Howe: We are keen to bring this issue back to the Chamber at the earliest possible stage. I very much hope that that will be at the Report stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Given that we need that response from local authorities, I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Earl Howe: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to suggest that this may be a convenient moment to take a break in the Committee's proceedings until 8.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.49 to 8.45 p.m.]
Clause 3 [Meaning of "dwelling"]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purpose of this Part, 'dwelling' means any property which would have been a domestic property for the purposes of the Schedule to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991 if that Act remained in force.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22 and the next few amendments seek information from the Government as to why there are differences between the wording of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991 which we passed with great speed last year and that of the present legislation. I have chosen to take the amendments separately because I thought that it would be easier for the Government to reply to each individual point. However, that does not mean to say that we need take a great deal of time over them.
Amendment No. 22 refers to the definition of "dwelling" which is the word used in the present Bill. We suggest that it should be defined in the Bill in the same way as in Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act. We do not really understand why the present Bill has dropped the concept of "domestic property" which was, after all, used when the present valuation proceedings were embarked upon. That definition is the legal justification for those proceedings. We do not understand why the Bill has dropped the concept of domestic property and replaced it with the word "dwelling" as defined in Clause 3. We should be most grateful to receive an explanation as to whether there is any real difference or whether it is simply a matter of presentation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment before the Committee is intended to render inoperative Clause 3 as it stands. It would substitute for the provisions in the clause the provisions in the schedule to the Local Government and Finance Valuation Act 1991. But the amendment is ineffective as there is little in Clause 3

805
which could not equally be achieved by order under the schedule to the 1991 Act. However, we have chosen to make some changes on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may spell out for the benefit of Members of the Committee the differences of substance between Clause 3(2) to (6) of this Bill and paragraphs 2 to 5 of the schedule to the 1991 Act. Clause 3(2) has at its end a provision to disregard rules as to Crown exemption. That is needed to ensure that Crown property which is non-domestic in nature does not fall to be liable to the council tax by virtue of the fact that it either does not appear in a rating list or is exempt from non-domestic rates. The provision simply ensures that only genuinely domestic properties are included.
Clause 3(3) provides a slightly different treatment for composite hereditaments from that contained in the schedule to the 1991 Act. The purpose is to enable the valuation provisions for non-domestic rating and those for the council tax in respect of composite hereditaments to mesh precisely. For non-domestic rating, the valuation officer assesses the rateable value of a composite property according to the extent of non-domestic use of the property. To mirror that, we intend to provide in regulations that only the value attributable to domestic use is taken into account for council tax purposes. That will ensure that there is no double taxation of composite properties.
Clause 3(5) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe that, for the purposes of the council tax, a single hereditament may be treated as two or more dwellings or that several hereditaments may be treated as a single dwelling. Some single hereditaments consist of a number of clearly separate and self-contained houses or flats. In those cases, we wish to provide that each of the separate units should be valued separately and give rise to separate council taxes.
There are also circumstances, such as houses in multiple occupation, in which it may be appropriate to treat a number of hereditaments as a single dwelling, as was allowed under the General Rate Act 1967. We need to include a discretionary element reflecting the discretion available under the 1967 Act. That is a feature of Clause 3 which is not available under the schedule to the 1991 Act.
So what, if anything, might the amendment achieve? It would subject some non-domestic property to the council tax; it would subject some property with both domestic and non-domestic use to double taxation; and it would subject some people in multiple occupation to separate bills when there was only a single bill under domestic rates. I believe that there is a misunderstanding over the amendment, and I call upon the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There may be some misunderstanding, and it may be my fault, but I found that answer extremely puzzling. The Minister has chosen to respond to a number of amendments which I have not moved and to which I have not spoken, but she has not answered the two fundamental questions I raised on Amendment No. 22. The first is: why are we changing from the concept of domestic property contained in the 1991 Act and replacing it by the concept of a dwelling? What is the difference between the two?
806
Secondly, if there is any change in substance, as opposed merely to a change in terminology, what effect will that have on the valuation process, which has already been embarked upon under the authority of the paving Bill? If I can have answers to those two simple questions rather than answers to questions which I have not yet posed, I shall feel happier about what, after all, was intended only to be a probing amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I could repeat the differences that I suggested existed between the substance of Clause 3(2) to (6) and paragraphs 2 to 5 of the schedule to the 1991 Act. I have given in detail what I believe to be the substance of the difference. If the Committee wishes me to, I shall repeat it all in detail. Perhaps the noble Lord can be persuaded to read what I have said, because I spelt out that the consequences of accepting the amendment would be to subject some non-domestic property to the council tax. In other words, those properties that were not named would be deemed to be domestic properties and would therefore be subjected to council tax. Those properties may, for example, be Crown exemption properties for which there is a larger bill under the other scheme. The amendment would also subject some mixed hereditaments to which I referred, where part is domestic and part is non-domestic, to double taxation. Thirdly, it would subject some people in multiple occupation to separate bills where there was only a single bill under domestic rates. There are substantial differences, and perhaps the noble Lord will read in detail what I have had to say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am willing to do that. I am not anxious to prolong a fruitless discussion, especially if I am not entirely sure that I know what I am talking about. The Minister is not being especially helpful on this occasion. She has continued to refer to Crown properties and mixed hereditaments, the subject of future amendments to which she will have an opportunity to reply.
I have a simple question. In the 1991 Act, the basis for the valuation procedure now being carried out, there was what was thought to be—it was proposed by the Government as such—an adequate definition of "domestic property". Since the valuers have no other authority, presumably they are working to that definition. What is changed by calling the property a dwelling? I am not talking about mixed hereditaments, Crown property or any of those things. I am talking about the instructions which the valuers who are now working have. Those instructions are based on Schedule 3 to the 1991 Act and refer to domestic property. What has changed?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may spell out the first difference. Clause 3(2) has at its end a provision to disregard rules as to Crown exemption. It is needed to ensure that Crown property which is non-domestic does not fall liable to the council tax by virtue of the fact that it does not appear in the rating list or is exempt from non-domestic rates. One example of not having the provision is that Marsham Street could be liable to the council tax. That would result in a low bill

807
for a building that enjoys Crown exemption where the Crown pays the non-domestic rate on behalf of the occupier.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether we are talking at cross purposes for a simpler reason than that of my stupidity. I think that the Minister believes that we are talking to Amendment No. 23 which is to leave out lines 20 and 21. We are in fact talking about Amendment No. 22 which has nothing to do with Crown property. It has to do with the definition of a dwelling. The word "dwelling" is fundamental to the concept of the council tax. In the absence of any other definition that I can find, we are seeking to define "dwelling" in terms of the 1991 Act and the instructions now being used by valuers. It has nothing to do with Crown property. We shall come to that later.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble friend replies, I took the trouble to look up the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act and felt satisfied that all the important provisions in that Act are now incorporated in the Bill. The whole of that Act is being repealed by Schedule 14 to the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that I am speaking to Amendment No. 22. My reply set out the changes, and I explained why the changes were made. I am afraid that there is little that I can add to what I have said.
Perhaps I may return to what the noble Lord said. He talked about the definition of a "dwelling". That is what I am talking about. There are some properties that do not appear on the rating list. They may be deemed wrongly to be domestic or non-domestic. It is important that there should be a clear distinction, which must appear on the face of the Bill, to ensure that each dwelling is allocated to the appropriate category. As I said, it is possible to have distorted bills, and I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord is seeking.
As I said, I can repeat the specific differences between the Bill and the Act. I cannot respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour. I shall read what he said and if I need to come back to him, I shall of course do so.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We seek to define the word "dwelling", which is introduced in the Bill and which does not appear in the 1991 Act—the points which the Minister raised do not apply—as a "domestic property" for the purpose of the schedule. What is wrong with that? How does that involve Marsham Street and any of the other examples? With the best will in the world, I am totally at a loss.
Baroness Blatch: I shall give this piece of information then perhaps we both ought to go back and read the record. "Domestic property" was depicted in the 1991 Act solely for the purpose of valuation. The definition was never intended to be a definitive answer to the question of which property
808
would be charged council tax. The definition did not deal with all the difficult cases. The definition of "dwelling" in this Act covers all the difficult cases in the way I have set out. I have great difficulty in reading the writing on my brief, but I wonder whether the noble Lord follows that explanation. There is a need to be explicit on the face of the Bill, to cover all properties so that they are all dealt with appropriately.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For the first time, there is a glimmer of light in my numskullish brain; I understand that there is a difference. It looks like rather sloppy or broad-ranging drafting in the 1991 Act if the valuers are required to value properties on the basis of a definition which would not stand up in subsequent legislation when it comes to imposing taxes on them. It seems to mean that the definition of "domestic property" in the 1991 Act is not satisfactory for the purpose of levying a tax. It may well mean that valuers are doing things which they would not otherwise have had to do, if the legislation at that time had been properly drafted. However, we seem to have made progress.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord had me at a disadvantage earlier. I was slightly unnerved by the fact that he did not understand at all the initial explanation that I gave. It is necessary for the purposes of the Bill to have an exact definition of where liability falls. I took pains to read out quite specifically the three areas where it was important to have that definition.
The noble Lord misunderstood my first answer and my attempt to come back. The final answer I gave him did no more than put in lay terms exactly why it is important to have what we argue should be on the face of the Bill. The exact definition of liability and where it should fall should be explicit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am a layman and it needs to be explained in lay terms. I believe it is not improper to demand that the Government should explain these matters in lay terms which people can understand.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble Lord for giving way to me. I wish to add to the request to the Minister to explain the point on Clause 21, which provides for valuations, when she comes back on this matter. Perhaps she will tell us whether there is any difference between that clause and the Act passed last year, in the light of the explanation that last year the dwellings had to be defined in order to start the valuation process. The question concerns dwellings that must be valued under Clause 21. However, I do not expect an answer now.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness that I explained why this Bill requires an absolutely explicit, exact definition of where liability should fall on a property. Because a few buildings fell outside what might have been an exact definition which related to the previous Act, it was necessary to make sure that it was put right on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand all that and I understood the last answer that the Minister

809
gave. However, she will understand that, unless she says to us in laymen's terms that the valuation Act 1991 was not sufficiently precise—and she did not say that in her first answer—and that all kinds of exceptions and loopholes have been found which must be plugged, it is difficult for us to understand the differences. For the record, the Minister is saying that she gave an answer which I would not accept.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise for not rising; the noble Lord is most generous. I gave an example but he did not accept it. The example was of Crown exemption properties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister gave an example of something she had not explained. It is extremely confusing if the Government are not willing to admit, until they have been questioned for what is now nearly 18 minutes—for which I apologise—that the 1991 Act was drafted in such a way as to leave loopholes when it comes to deciding who is charged and who is not charged the council tax.
It would never have have occurred to a layman that one had to be less precise when carrying out a valuation than when charging tax. However, we have made progress. As the Minister suggests, I shall read with care what she said from first to last—preferably last. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21.
The noble Lord said: It may well be that the Minister considers that she has answered the amendment, although she insisted that she was not trying to do so. I can only repeat that the definition of "domestic property" in the 1991 Act made no reference to rules relating to Crown exemption. The definition of "dwelling" in Clause 3 of the Bill has been modified so that no account shall be taken of rules relating to Crown exemption. For the record, we have to ask whether there is any significance in the change and what is the relevance of the reference to Crown exemption.
Baroness Blatch: I shall try my best to answer. As has just been explained, the reference to Crown exemption is needed to ensure that some property which is clearly non-domestic in character does not become liable for the council tax. An example may help to clarify what is intended. Properties such as government offices are not liable for non-domestic rates because they enjoy Crown exemption. Instead, a contribution in lieu of rates is paid. Since such offices were exempt from rates, they would not be shown on local rating lists. If this amendment were accepted, such properties would become subject to council tax. I am sure that is not what the noble Lord would wish. With that brief and I hope clear explanation, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("dwelling") to end of line and insert:
("in respect of that part of the hereditament which would have been domestic property for the purposes of the Schedule to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991 if that Act remained in force.").
The noble Lord said: I shall continue in the same vein, but I shall not speak at great length. In the 1991 Act there was a definition of domestic property which differentiated between the domestic and non-domestic elements of composite hereditaments. I understood that at the time, or I thought in my innocence that I did. I understood that meant that if there was a composite hereditament the domestic element would constitute domestic property for the purpose of the council tax and the non-domestic element would not be domestic but presumably would be subject to the national non-domestic rate. In Clause 3(3) of the Bill there is no distinction. That subsection states only that a composite hereditament is a dwelling. Does that mean there is now no distinction between the domestic and non-domestic elements of a composite hereditament? Will the dwelling, as defined in Clause 3(3), be subject to corporation tax? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment also proposes returning to the provision of the 1991 Act. In my earlier reply the reason for the proposed change in the treatment of composite properties was explained. I was going to say I did not wish to repeat the arguments, but perhaps I should do so for the benefit of the noble Lord. Clause 3(5) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe that for the purposes of the council tax a single hereditament may be treated as two or more dwellings, or that several hereditaments may be treated as a single dwelling. Some single hereditaments consist of a number of clearly separate and self-contained houses or flats. In those cases we wish to provide that each of the separate units should be valued separately.
As regards composite properties, Clause 3(3) provides a slightly different treatment for composite hereditaments from that contained in the schedule to the 1991 Act. The purpose is to enable the valuation provisions for non-domestic rating and those for the council tax in respect of composite hereditaments to mesh precisely. For non-domestic rating, the valuation officer assesses the rateable value of a composite property according to the extent of non-domestic use of the property. To mirror this we intend providing in regulations that only the value attributable to domestic use is taken into account for council tax purposes. That will ensure there is no double taxation of composite properties.
I am not sure whether that explanation is helpful to the noble Lord. However, the Bill, as drafted, is designed to ensure that composite properties pay their fair share of both the council tax and non-domestic rates but do not face double taxation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that answer. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I did not understand what was intended in regulations which

811
may have been drafted but have not yet been published. I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot tell what is intended in those regulations. The Bill, as drafted, does not remove my anxieties.
The Minister's explanation of what is proposed to be in regulations provided me with a full and satisfactory answer. However, she also attempted to reply to Amendment No. 28, which stands in my name. I do not propose to anticipate that amendment. If that is the only reply the Minister intends to give to Amendment No. 28, I shall certainly not be satisfied with it. However, in the light of the Minister's response to Amendment No. 24, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 24B:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("living accommodation") and insert ("a dwelling").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is moved out of a sense of complete puzzlement. I am slow but I can gradually be taught to use the word "dwelling" rather than the term "domestic property". But suddenly there has been a change. We are now required to use the term "living accommodation". What is the distinction between living accommodation and a dwelling? What is the distinction between living accommodation, a dwelling and domestic property? Clause 3(4) (a) introduces a definition of property used,
"wholly for the purposes of living accommodation".
Why do we need a third definition? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 24B again seeks to use a definition different from the definition of domestic property in Section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. All such changes should be rejected on the same arguments I deployed in the debate on Amendment No. 24A. The effect of this amendment as compared with the Bill as drafted would be to say that yards, gardens and outhouses which are separate hereditaments enjoyed with composite hereditaments are not dwellings. Again, those hereditaments would be non-domestic under the 1988 Act and so cannot be a dwelling. There is no need for another provision which says that they are not dwellings. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is important that in due course, but not at this stage of the Bill, we should have clarification regarding garages, for example. In the old days of the rating system there was confusion because if the garage was within the curtilage of one's own home, it was regarded as part of one's home; but if it happened to be five doors away it was rated separately. There will be many complications in the case of small outhouses or of barns, for example; and in due course perhaps we can hear more about that question, but not tonight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is right. She
812
anticipated my Amendment No. 24F. She described an anomaly which existed under the old rating system. I should not anticipate the debate, but the Government propose to replace that by the opposite anomaly. In other words, they propose to include for valuation under the council tax a garage which is attached to the dwelling but not a garage which is not attached to the dwelling. There are anomalies whichever way one looks. So much for the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who thinks that these matters are simple.
I am not satisfied with that answer but it is not a matter on which I shall divide the Committee. The answer I received is more like the answers which the Minister gave in response to my earlier amendments. It does not seek to explain in layman's terms why different words should be used for what is essentially the same thing.
I shall read in Hansard what the Minister said. If I still do not understand it, I shall seek further explanation or come back to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 24C:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("which") to ("is") in line 31.
The noble Lord said: I had not intended to move Amendments Nos. 24C and 24D, but in view of the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, perhaps I should do so. There are still anomalies in the definition of a garage. For some reason Clause 3(4) (b) defines a garage as being less than 25 square metres. I do not understand the significance of that figure. I am told that there are people—although I do not know any—who have double or treble garages which may be considerably larger.
Amendment No. 24D relates to the definition of a garage in terms of accommodation for a private motor vehicle. There are all sorts of other vehicles in addition to motor vehicles. These are perhaps trivial matters but the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to them and it is as well that she and I should have an explanation.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether one of the reasons for this item being included in the Bill is that garages come within strict building regulations under which requirements relating to the extent to which a garage should have additional ventilation and fire-proofing apply when the garage is larger than 25 square metres because of the risk of people committing suicide in their garages by turning on the ignition and gassing themselves. Under Scottish regulations there are strict rules governing garages.
I am glad that in future garages are not to be considered separately for council tax. I hope that they will be included as part of the building in order to avoid the old problem of small bills coming in for all kinds of different items.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendments Nos. 24C and 24D relate entirely to garages. Amendment No. 24C would have the effect of bringing into council tax small

813
lock-up garages with an area of less than 25 square metres and not used for the accommodation of a private motor vehicle. That cannot be right as such garages have no living accommodation. They should not be subject to a tax based partly on property values and partly on numbers of residents. The effect of the Bill as drafted is to ensure that they are subject to neither the council tax nor non-domestic rating.
Amendment No. 24D seeks to exclude from council tax garages larger than 25 square metres used to accommodate private vehicles which are not motor vehicles. The amendment would have no effect since such garages are not domestic property and cannot be dwellings. They would be subject to non-domestic rating. That is a fairly full explanation but if the noble Lord is not satisfied I shall be delighted to explain further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister threatens me with a two-page or even three-page version. I move these amendments only to satisfy fully the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I could briefly intervene as I seem to have started discussion on this issue. It is important that the Government should look at what these amendments will do, even in terms of non-domestic rates. It is very common in London in developments and perhaps in some other places to put all the garages together. At the moment where people still pay water rates on their house, usually they do not pay water rates on the garage. They pay a drainage rate which is very much less. A garage is not therefore rated in the same way as full non-domestic or business premises.
I hope that some thought will be given to that point so that people will not be greatly disadvantaged by the difference between having their garage in a block of garages and having it beside or attached to their house.
Lord Strathclyde: Briefly in reply to my noble friend, garages which are not part of a large domestic property will in no circumstances be the subject of the council tax. They are not at present subject to the standard community charge. Garages that have an area greater than 25 square metres and are not wholly or mainly for the accommodation of a private motor vehicle will be subject to the non-domestic rate.
I hope that my comments clarify the point about garages which are far from, say, a block of flats.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That certainly makes the matter much clearer. It still strikes me as impossible to provide a satisfactory mesh between the non-domestic rate and the council tax in these circumstances. I understand what the Government say and shall consider it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24D and 24E not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 24F:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("dwelling") to end of line 36.
814
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment to make sure that I have properly understood the situation. My understanding is that garages are included if they are part of the dwelling but not included if they are not part of the dwelling. Those who are forced to have garages away from their homes and who use them for exactly the same purposes as those who have garages within the boundaries of their homes will feel that there is something unfair about that situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment is rather different from the other amendments to Clause 3(4) which we have just debated. The purpose of the amendment is to take out of consideration for the valuation of dwellings, those yards, gardens, outhouses, garages and storage premises which fall within the boundaries of a single hereditament. It is a nonsense to suggest that a house with an integral garage should be valued as if that garage were not there. It is quite right that lock-up garages, storage premises and other such hereditaments should not be subject to the council tax in their own right. We have provided for that. But I cannot accept that such property which is part of a single hereditament which includes living accommodation should be excluded from the dwelling.
Again, I believe that the amendment would make valuation of dwellings very difficult. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand the answer. It does not solve the problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, raised about the differential rating of garages according to whether or not they are next to the properties. However, this is not a matter of sufficient moment for me to pursue now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must point out that if Amendment No. 25 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 under the pre-emption rule.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 37, after ("may") insert ("for the purposes specified in subsection (5A) below").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 26 is a matter of a certain amount of substance beyond the amendments we have been discussing so far. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 27. There was a certain amount of debate in another place but the amendments proposed there, although they happened to have the same numbers as these amendments, were very different. At that time it was proposed that subsection (5)—the subsection which provides that the Secretary of State can say that one dwelling should be treated as more than one or that more than one dwelling should be treated as one dwelling—should be taken out and replaced by a more restrictive provision.
We are not doing that now. We are now attempting to modify the provisions in subsection (5) by saying that they shall have effect for the purpose of

815
prescribing the treatment of dwellings in multiple occupation and dwellings which have been converted to provide separate accommodation—commonly known as granny flats—for members of the same family.
In the other place there was no adequate answer from the Government about what other conditions could apply to make it necessary for the Secretary of State to implement the provisions of subsection (5) in the form of an order. What, other than houses in multi-occupation or granny flats, would justify the making of such an order?
Obviously, there are plenty of examples of types of dwelling which might appear on the surface to be more than one dwelling and should be amalgamated for the purpose of the council tax. That is not a problem. But what type of dwelling other than the ones in our new subsection (5A) should be treated as two or more dwellings when they would otherwise be considered as a single dwelling? The amendment is moved for the purpose of having an answer to that question. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: As I understand the position, the idea behind Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 in providing for dwellings in multi-occupation is to some extent covered by Clause 8 of the Bill, which deals with liability in prescribed cases where there is accommodation for more than one person, and will be subject to regulations produced by the Secretary of State.
Lord Skelmersdale: That is all very well. But the amendment provides a peg for my noble friend to explain exactly what is a single hereditament, a dual hereditament, or an even greater hereditament, and also to indicate what is in the Secretary of State's mind at this moment.
For example, many people not miles away from your Lordships' House are paying guests at various houses in London. In order to satisfy the contract for paying guests, they have the opportunity to use a room and, one would hope, a bathroom too in this day and age, and also perhaps have the use of a kitchen and a sitting room. There are other people, again not miles away from your Lordships' House, who have a discrete part of a house which is defined from the point of view that it is their sole occupation, albeit on a part-time basis. But it is also very much part of a single house under the old rating system. It would be useful to know what the Secretary of State intends to do about those two cases.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, the purpose of these amendments is to limit the effect of Clause 3(5) so that it can apply only to dwellings in multiple occupation and to dwellings which have been divided up to accommodate members of the same family.
There is no need to limit the provision in the way suggested by the amendments. There will be an opportunity to consider the way in which the powers provided by Clause 3(5) have been exercised when the relevant order is laid, and we shall all have an
816
opportunity to see the terms of that order. I hope Members of the Committee will agree that that is a sufficient safeguard.
I do not for one minute pretend that the order will confine itself to the circumstances described in the amendment. However, I shall spell out to the Committee what we intend to achieve by the exercise of the power conferred by Clause 3(5). First, we wish to ensure that the residents of every separate and self-contained house or flat are subject to the council tax in their own right. We believe that that is only fair.
It would not be fair if, due to an accident of history, three houses which happen to comprise a single hereditament under the old rating system were subject to a single shared council tax bill while an identical house nearby which was a hereditament were subject to a different council tax bill. We wish to see all properties of a similar value in an area facing a similar council tax bill. That will help to make the council tax fair and, we believe, understandable.
However, conversely, there are some cases, such as houses in multiple occupation, where the individual residents should not have to face separate bills even though the definition of a hereditament under the General Rate Act 1967 might suggest that they should. The 1967 Act made provision in Section 24 for hereditaments to be combined under certain circumstances and it is our intention to use Clause 3(5) to continue such treatment.
A number of specific and technical questions were raised during the debate. It will be part of my job to spend some time between now and Report to ensure that due consideration is given to them. We believe that the amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to achieve a fair and comprehensible treatment of certain kinds of dwellings. For that reason we ask for some flexibility to be retained.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked for examples of dwellings to be split. A public school may contain masters' houses all of which would have been part of a single hereditament for rates. That is because they have the same rateable occupier; that is the school. Another example might be a hospital with houses in its grounds or flats for doctors. During discussions this morning my noble friend Lord Howe told me that he received a rate bill for a group of buildings within the curtilage of his home which, for the purposes of the council tax, should be dealt with separately.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be familiar with the term "hereditament" while other Members of the Committee will not. It is a unit of property which would have been liable to a rate under the General Rate Act 1967. Essentially it means a single property in one occupation. I have given a number of examples where we believe it appropriate to consider that there is more than one unit of property which is eligible for the council tax.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to give examples, although she gave only one, of a case where a building should be treated as being two or more dwellings. As we reach

817
the end of this series of amendments it is becoming increasingly clear that all the difficulties of definition have been brought upon the Government by themselves. At least the much-reviled rating system had the advantage of having a reasonably clear definition of a hereditament.
Hereditaments covered the whole country. They could he divided into domestic rate and non-domestic rate. If they were mixed, the non-domestic rate could be charged on one part and the domestic rate on another part. If they were not mixed, the valuation system was precise enough to take into account all the special cases which have now been forced onto the face of the Bill. It was the responsibility of the owner or occupier of the hereditament as a whole to apportion the rates between the occupiers of the different parts which gave rise to the rating assessment. That was a logical, satisfactory, comprehensible and comprehensive way of levying a property tax.
We now have a bastard tax. It is a tax in between a property tax and a poll tax. The Government admit that it is 50 per cent. of one and 50 per cent. of the other. The property element of it is so crude that it is not capable of taking into account all the complexities of the parts within what would otherwise have been a hereditament but which must now be called a dwelling.
All those difficulties could be avoided if the Government were to abandon their obsession with mixing up a property tax and a poll tax and if they were to abandon their obsession with a crude method of valuation which is incapable of taking into account all the precise elements which give rise to the valuation.
Baroness Blatch: I suggest to the noble Lord that what is being suggested is less crude. Without our proposal, without any proper definition of a dwelling, the noble Lord would have every reason to consider that the tax was crude.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I readily concede that. The basic formula for valuation is crude. Clause 3 and various other parts of the Bill must be introduced because the crudity is too obvious to be avoided. Therefore, Clause 3 seeks to temper the crudity of the valuation system by an extremely complex method of assigning what would otherwise have been hereditaments into different dwellings or they must be deemed not to be dwellings at all. The Minister has made an extremely good case for me.
As I said, we are almost at the end of this group of amendments. When we have dealt with Amendment No. 28, I shall have a few remarks to make about the way in which we should proceed with the matter. However, that is clearly not in the form of Amendment No. 26 and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (6).
818
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 28 we come to the crux of the matter. After all the attempts to temper the crudity of the definition of a dwelling, what does the Secretary of State do in subsection (6)? The Bill states that:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend, or substitute another definition for, any definition of 'dwelling' which is for the time being effective for the purposes of this Part".
On the kindest possible interpretation that means that the Government have not the faintest idea as to what is a dwelling and they will make it up as they go along.
On a much less kind interpretation—and it is the one to which I lean—the Government really want to have the ability to make up the definition of a dwelling as they go along because they believe that there is a substantial political and fiscal point in having the power by order to alter the definition of a dwelling.
The point is that the definition of "dwelling" is set out on the face of the Bill. Subsection (6) proposes that the Secretary of State may by order alter the provisions on the face of the Bill. We have heard detailed explanations from the Minister about why it is important on the face of the Bill to define accurately the word "dwelling". We have had detailed explanations of why the definition of a domestic property in the 1991 Act was not satisfactory. Therefore, we must assume that the increased precision provided by Clause 3 is satisfactory. That is on the face of the Bill. That is supposed to be the satisfactory drafting of the Bill.
I believe that it would be advisable for Ministers to listen to this point: it is now being said that under subsection (6) the Secretary of State will have power to alter what is on the face of the Bill. That is a Henry VIII provision. We are talking about the ability of the Secretary of State by order to alter the provisions made in the Bill.
We have been told at some length—I have been insisting that we be told at some length—that these definitions of a dwelling are better than the definitions used in the 1991 Act and that they must be precise for the purpose of levying the council tax. There cannot be any doubt that the definition of a dwelling is critical to the success or otherwise of the operation of the council tax system. How can there be any justification for a provision which says that a definition, which was arrived at with care, concern and detail to drafting, can be altered at whim by the Secretary of State?
It is no good the Minister saying that it is provided by order, and that the House can consider an order. It would not satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, if he were here and it does not satisfy me. We deserve from the Minister a much more detailed and convincing explanation of the power now being conferred on the Secretary of State to alter primary legislation by order. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has made much of the amendment. He has used phrases like, "This is the crux of the matter", and "It is highly critical." I can tell the Committee that the Government have no plans to amend the definition now on the face of the Bill. But I would not be so brave as to claim that this is the last word; that it is a perfect definition which will suffice for all time. We cannot pretend to know what the

819
future will hold. Nor can we know if some unthought-of anomalies will arise whereby some properties escape local taxation altogether.
The same power is contained in the 1988 Act in relation to the definition of domestic property for the purposes of non-domestic rating. The power is therefore required here in order to ensure consistency between the council tax and non-domestic rating. If we do not have the power there is a risk that some property will be subject to double taxation. It is important that the Secretary of State retains the discretion to deal with uncertain future events. We believe that that is a sensible and prudent way forward. I therefore call on the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should like to ask the Minister to take this matter a little more seriously. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for bringing it to the attention of the Committee. He is correct; it is a Henry VIII clause. It is a provision to alter, by order, what is contained on the face of the Bill.
For my part I am perfectly prepared to accept the noble Lord's first hypothetical explanation; that is, that the Government are not certain what definition they will use. Although I accept what the Minister says about there being no plans to alter the definition, that fact weakens the case for taking the power.
It is all very well to say that the Secretary of State can be given the power to do whatever he likes. That is what the argument of the noble Baroness amounted to. However, if we go too far down that road, I do not see what we are doing here at all. We could simply allow the Secretary of State discretion and leave him to get on with it. That is what I am increasingly coming to think of in terms of the category of contingency legislation. Since the range of contingencies which may arise is literally infinite, the Secretary of State cannot provide for all his possible anxieties except by taking to himself the power to deal with absolutely any possible contingency that may arise.
The problem therefore with the Minister's argument is that it does too much. It authorises the Secretary of State to take a far wider range of powers than even the Secretary of State is claiming. The first point about the Henry VIII clause is that we need to be shown some specific reason why the powers are needed to achieve a specific objective. In this case we have been told that there is no particular objective. I entirely accept that. However, I cannot see that there is any point in taking powers at random. That is what it amounts to. I do not believe that that situation is good enough.
I feel some misgivings too about a general principle which allows the Secretary of State a power to alter legal terms. After all, legal terms have a considerable history and a considerable body of precedent behind them. Therefore if those terms can be changed by the Secretary of State by order then the legal consequences—I speak as a layman; I do not know how far those consequences extend—could be far-reaching. I do not understand how the noble
820
Baroness can make out an argument for taking those powers just in case there is some hypothetical reason why she may need them in future.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl. I take personal exception to his allegation that I did not take the amendment seriously. I have taken every amendment seriously that has come before the Committee; I shall continue to do so while the Bill is being discussed in this Chamber. It is an important Bill. The noble Earl has every right within this Chamber to challenge the Bill because that is the business and stuff of what we are about in this place.
The noble Earl is right always to put pressure on a government for excessive use of Henry VIII clauses. I do not argue with that. However, I believe that the Government sensibly take those powers for unforeseen circumstances. The legislative workload of this Chamber would be considerably increased if we had to come before this Chamber for what very often are minor changes to primary legislation. I make no apology for that.
However, the final point I pray in aid of the defence of rejecting the amendment is this. In practice, the Government's record of taking those powers which may cover unforeseen circumstances which may deal with minor points but nevertheless prevent us having to clog up the system by coming back for primary legislation, is very good. Over the past years there is no evidence of this Government abusing those powers. If there were any evidence that the Government had abused their powers the noble Earl would have every reason to be concerned about our taking a power for which there is considerable precedent. I have cited the 1988 Act as an example of where the power has been taken but not abused.
Earl Russell: I must make my apologies to the noble Baroness if I inadvertently gave offence. I should perhaps re-phrase the wording about taking the amendment seriously. I did not mean to insinuate that the noble Baroness was not responding to it. Will she accept a form of words which states that I wished that she had recognised more the gravity of the matter of the amendment?
I comment on only one other point. The noble Baroness states that this Government have not been guilty of any abuse of power. If that is so, it is the first government for which that claim can be made since Adam.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot resist saying that the Minister could not have made either of the replies that she has just given in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I was criticised by the noble and learned Lord for my over-simplified view of Henry VIII clauses. I had listened to what he said about the Donoughmore Committee and about the history of Henry VIII clauses from the time of Henry VIII, and no doubt before. Unwisely I expressed the view that they were always undesirable and always to be opposed.
The noble and learned Lord corrected me. He said that the distinction had to be made between those

821
opportunities provided in legislation for a Secretary of State to overturn primary legislation by order where such a power was absolutely essential and where it was merely convenient. I have heard nothing from the Minister that indicates to me that that power is anything other than convenient to government. There are reasons, both looking forward and looking back, for that statement. Looking back, the reason is that the 1988 Bill was so badly drafted that the Government have had to come back on a couple of occasions to improve the drafting. They will probably have to come back again when they realise the gravity of the issue in regard to computer records in the enforcement of poll tax orders. The argument which is based on past failures does not lead very far in conviction that the Government are likely to get it right in the future.
The argument for being anxious about the future is stronger than that. All the Minister has been able to say to us is that she cannot predict that definitions will not need to be changed in the future and that it would be more convenient—she did not use the word "convenient"; I do not want to put words into her mouth—for that to be done by the Secretary of State rather than by primary legislation.
We spent—and I plead guilty to causing this—more than an hour on the definition of "dwelling". We have done so because the Government have insisted on a more precise definition of dwelling than that which was contained in the 1991 paving Act. We have done so on the assurance of Government that it was necessary to have a precise definition of "dwelling" in order for the council tax to be implemented. We have done so on the understanding, which I think all Members of the Committee have, that the definition of dwelling is a critical part of the Government's ability to define adequately who is eligible to be charged the council tax and who is not. All that we are now being told is that the Secretary of State wants the power, in some circumstances which are yet to be defined, for his own convenience to change that definition. If ever there were an example not only of a Henry VIII clause but of a Henry VIII clause which would come under the strictures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and other constitutional lawyers, this is it. This is a matter on which I am obliged to take the opinion of the Committee.
822
9.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Boston of Faversham, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bauer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Byron, L.

Pym, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Selborne, E.

Elibank, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Stockton, E.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

[Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Huntly, M.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10 p.m.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Dwellings chargeable to council tax]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 1, after ("payable") insert ("in accordance with section 5 below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 35 and 36. We are still dealing with the thorny question of the definition of the word "dwelling". But we are now dealing with a clause which seeks to define the word more precisely by bringing in the definition of an "exempt dwelling". Of course none of that has any meaning because, as the Committee has just confirmed, under Clause 3(6) the Secretary of State can change it all if he wishes to do so. Therefore, we are wasting our time debating any definition of the word "dwelling".
However, just for the record, let us say that the amendments proposed appear to us to go to the other extreme from the extraordinary provision made for second homes in the poll tax legislation. Members of the Committee will recall that at the time of that legislation fears were expressed—notably by those with second homes rather than by those on this side of the Chamber—that the opportunity for a council to charge extra poll tax on a second home, which was provided for in the Bill, would in fact be taken. But the Government pooh-poohed that idea. They said, "Oh no, district councils will not do anything so cruel and unreasonable". In point of fact, by 1991–92 (the present year) I believe that there is no single district council in the country which does not charge double poll tax on second homes on the justification that, on average, there are two people in every second home.
I do not wish to stand up as the defender of those with second homes. But I believe that the provision here is much too open and that it enables the Secretary of State rather than the billing authorities to have far too much freedom about how second homes should be treated. Therefore, we propose the new definition of a "special dwelling". We also propose that the council tax for a "special dwelling" defined in that way shall not be more than a single council tax under the legislation. It is a very simple series of amendments and one which, although it may not appeal to all Labour supporters, will appeal to those who have a sense of justice which was not satisfied by the provisions of the 1988 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: When I first read Amendment No. 30, I had some difficulty in understanding precisely what it meant. The difficulty is that it introduces the word "special" without giving any clear definition of what that might mean. It removes the word "exempt"—I believe that I know what that word means in the general sense—and inserts the word "special" in its place. Without more of a guidance or indicator to define what "special" might mean, the amendment presents one with a difficulty.
However, as one reads the clause with more care, one finds that "special" could be defined by referring to line 6 of subsection (2) which refers to,
"any dwelling of a class prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State".
824
The noble Lord has made great play over Henry VIII clauses. I do not claim that this is a Henry VIII clause, but it seems to me that it allows the Secretary of State to give any conceivable meaning to the term "special" that he might wish. I never imagined—I may be lacking in imagination —that the amendment referred to second homes.
The noble Lord has just used the term "second home", and so now I may imagine—having been given that helping hand—that "special" has something to do with second homes. I could well see the point that the reduction for some categories, which is on offer, might not be offered for second homes. I could see that the Opposition might propose such an amendment. The noble Lord makes great play over the issue of clarity. As I have said earlier, I see the Bill, in the main, as a clear one. I am not sure that the amendment adds to its clarity. Where in the amendment do we have the faintest intimation that "special" relates to second homes?
Lord Strathclyde: I tend to agree with my noble friend that these are strange amendments. They range from the unnecessary to the positively undesirable. Amendment No. 29 seems to seek an assurance that the amounts of council tax payable in respect of a chargeable dwelling shall be determined according to Clause 5; but that will already be the case. The amendment achieves precisely nothing. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will quickly withdraw it.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 seek to introduce the new concept of "special dwellings" to replace "exempt dwellings". The principle of exemption is a clear one. There are certain properties to which the council tax should not apply because of their special circumstances. Those properties will be designated in regulations. We propose to exempt a number of categories, including dwellings left unoccupied and unfurnished for up to six months, and dwellings where all the residents are students.
Properties which are not exempt will give rise to a bill which depends principally upon the valuation band in which they fall. That is the idea of a property-based tax. The amendments attempt to do away with that idea in some cases to be known as "special dwellings". I can see no justification for the proposal that some dwellings should be taxed in a way that takes no account of their value.
The idea of a "special" dwelling also undermines the banding system. Although the tax payable on a special dwelling is to be some amount between zero and the amount for a band H property, there is nothing in the amendment to say that the amount should be that payable for a property in a particular band. So with this amendment we should have a two-faced system, in which the majority of dwellings were taxed according to the normal tax bands, but the rest were taxed on some separate, arbitrary basis.
We shall come on to the advantages of a banded system later in our proceedings. But there are two key benefits. First, the tax is simple to administer, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew said. Secondly, the tax payable on the most valuable dwelling bears a fixed relationship to the tax on the most modest. Clause 5 proposes that the tax on the former dwelling should be

825
limited to three times the tax on the latter. That is an important provision, and a great advance on the old rating system.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. Clause 4 presently allows the Secretary of State to prescribe categories of exempt dwellings by reference to the physical characteristics of the dwellings, the fact that they are unoccupied, or the purpose for which they are occupied or the description of their occupants. Subsection (3) ensures that the power is not limited to those factors; it allows the Secretary of State to prescribe categories of exempt dwellings by reference to such factors as he sees fit.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would remove subsection (3), and hence restrict the Secretary of State's power of prescription to the factors which I have just enumerated, which appear in subsection (4). Subsection (4) lists some of the more important factors to which the Secretary of State might wish to refer in exempting dwellings, but it may not be sufficient to cover all eventualities. In practice, the only effect of the amendment would be to impose an unnecessary restriction on the Secretary of State's power to exempt categories of dwelling. That restriction might rebound on noble Lords when they plead that one or other special case should be exempted.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will reconsider.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Like my noble friend Lord Renfrew, I never saw this clause as having anything to do with second homes. I marvel at the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who seemed to be able to read a reference to second homes into it. As he has done so, perhaps I should explain that I still have my constituency home and also, because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his noble friends go on so late into the night, I have a flat in Westminster. So I have a second home. I thought that the arrangements under the poll tax were remarkably fair for second homes. I did not quarrel with them when the Bill was passed.
However, having said that, I must ask my noble friend to be a little more specific as to what his right honourable friend has in mind for the extra factors that he may wish to bring in. I hope that I am not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but when I read this clause I was reminded of the nice little rhyme which Sir Robert Megarry produced in his Miscellany-at-Law when he was criticising some of the modern legislation:
"If anything shall seem, then the Minister may deem; A certificate of demption provides complete exemption".
I do not know whether there is yet a draft order but the matter is left wide open. We must have some idea of the other factors, besides the last subsection, that the Minister has in mind. I can understand her wishing to retain flexibility, but has a draft order yet been published? I am afraid that I have not had time to browse through the drafts which have so far been placed in the Library, but there must be some limit on the degree of discretion which the House can confer on Ministers in such legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, should have been present on a number of earlier occasions. If he had been, perhaps he would not have voted the way he did. He talks of giving aid and comfort to the enemy but I remind him that we are his opponents. He is the Government's enemy in this case because he quite rightly says that Clause 4 gives far too great a power to the Secretary of State.
Since he was not in his seat earlier, I say to him that Clause 4 is quite unnecessary because Clause 3(6) gives the Secretary of State power to amend the definition of "dwelling" in any way he wishes. Therefore, all the complexities of Clause 4 do not make matters worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has read with care some of the amendments on which I spoke, but clearly not Amendment No. 31. Accepting the unjustifiable freedom which Clause 4 gives to the Secretary of State, in Amendment No. 31 we are trying to make some restriction on the power the Secretary of State may have to authorise the charging of high rates of council tax on what we call special dwellings rather than exempt dwellings. The words "exempt dwelling" are weasel words because the Minister described the Secretary of State's intention. His description is all we have to go on and some of the cases about which he spoke may not turn out to be exempt although they will be described as exempt under the conditions of Clause 4.
We have debated most of the issues in Clause 4 during our consideration of the last amendment on Clause 3. It would not be proper for me to detain the Committee any longer on them. I like being accused of ingenuity, but I do not think that my ingenuity goes so far as to claim that every single word of this group of amendments is immaculate or self-explanatory. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 29.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 6, after second ("dwelling"), insert ("set out in subsection (2A) below and any other dwelling").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 33 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 33A, 33B and 34. Both pairs of amendments appeared to have the support of the Minister in another place. We hope that we may have the support of the Minister in this Committee and perhaps be able to amend the face of the Bill.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 is fairly straightforward. Under the poll tax, people in hospital, residential care or nursing care who are detained under certain circumstances—for example imprisonment—were exempt from the personal poll tax. Regulations also ensured they did not have to pay the standard poll tax on their unoccupied homes for the first 12 months. Schedule 1 to this Bill does not exempt these groups from the council tax. It simply provides them with up to 50 per cent. discount under Clause 11. We believe, however, that Ministers implied in the House of Commons that it was the

827
intention of the Secretary of State to produce regulations that will exempt unoccupied properties owned by these groups from liability for the council tax. These amendments would ensure that those groups are exempt from the council tax on their unoccupied homes for at least 12 months and that this principle is not left simply to regulations.
The amendment would also address the position of certain carers—we shall return to that group later—who have given up their own homes for up to a year in order to move in with someone else to provide care or support. Without those safeguards there would be a considerable disincentive to provide care in the community. For example, an elderly person needing fairly long-term residential care would lose any possibility of returning to the community if he decided to give up his home because he was worried about running up a council tax bill. Equally, owner-occupiers who are considering becoming community service volunteers and living with a disabled person might be deterred from that course if they also faced a council tax bill on their unoccupied homes. There may be little to divide us on the issue. We would welcome assurances from the Minister to that effect.
Amendments Nos. 33A and 33B address the situation of students. The purpose of the two amendments is to strengthen the commitment to exempt certain student dwellings by putting that provision on the face of the Bill. On numerous occasions in another place the Government said that student hostels and halls of residence would be exempt from liability for council tax. That is understood by us to mean that all student residences that are owned or leased by an educational institution, plus all other dwellings where all the adult residents are full-time students, are exempt from liability. I see nods around the Committee and therefore I believe I am correct. The amendments seek to ensure that that commitment is put on the face of the Bill.
We would be happy to receive that assurance and even happier if the Minister could accept the amendments. We have certain questions we hope the Minister will be able to answer. Matters still remain unclear even after consultation. What is the position of the resident and the non-resident landlord of a property with student occupants? On 13th January, in a Written Answer to a parliamentary Question concerning liability for council tax of landlords of houses—not particularly with student occupants—in multiple occupation, the Minister in another place, Mr. Key, stated that landlords of such properties would be liable.
What happens in a situation where some of the residents are students, where more than two of the residents are not students and where the landlord has the liability for the tax? What assurances would students have that this would not be passed on to all residents—students included—in houses in multiple occupation in the form of a higher rent charge? That is a matter of concern. When the poll tax replaced the rates and students who were paying rates with their rents then found themselves not liable under the terms of the standard charge, nonetheless their rents were
828
not rebated and landlords continued to cream off an existing level of rent. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment.
I have a further point which is related to the remarks I have just made. What is the situation where a landlord lets to students in the course of the academic year and to non-students during the summer vacation? What happens as regards liability for the tax? I hope the Government can respond to that point. If such dwellings are to be totally exempt from liability, will there be a mechanism for local authorities to receive compensation for lost income, perhaps through the revenue support grant as can happen in the case of discounts? That is obviously an important issue in university towns where a substantial number of properties may be entirely occupied by students and where those dwellings may be exempt from liability. I am trying to do some speedy calculations. I believe that in my own local authority a council tax income of between £100,000 and £200,000 could be lost through such a provision. Other university towns would like to know what compensation they might receive if such properties were exempt from the council tax. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There are two points that I should like to make in relation to the amendments. The first relates to Amendment No. 33A. I am very much in favour of that amendment and Amendment No. 33B as probing amendments. At Second Reading I asked what the position would be in relation to students and was told that broadly they would be exempt. Statements have been made in the other place to that effect. Therefore, I look forward to some encouraging remarks from my noble friend the Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right to put down the amendment because it must be confessed that within the Bill there is not the faintest inkling of those matters. All that we have heard about them are rumours and rumours of rumours from the other place. Therefore it would be very helpful to have further information. I leave it to my noble friend the Minister to decide when it would be appropriate to make a full statement about students. I hope that that will be a full and coherent statement so that we may understand the position and ask the slightly difficult questions about the fine print which the noble Baroness rightly asked.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not think me unhelpful if I reflect on Amendment No. 34. In the context of the simplification which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, offered that amendment is extraordinary. Paragraph (ii) of the amendment reads:
"It is owned by a person to whom paragraphs 1, 6, 7 or 9 of Schedule 9 to this Act applies".
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 9 refers to polygamous marriages. By reconstructing the thought processes of noble Lords opposite I am in a position to assure the Committee that Schedule 1 is intended. By reading "Schedule 1" for "Schedule 9" one can avoid the polygamous marriages. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 refers to persons in detention, paragraph 6 to people in hospital, paragraph 7 to patients in homes in England and Wales and paragraph 9 to care workers.

829
It is not clear to me why paragraphs 2, 3 and 8 are omitted from the list. Paragraph 2 relates to persons with mental difficulties, paragraph 3 to persons receiving child benefit and paragraph 8 to patients in homes in Scotland. It is not clear why the helpful attentions of the noble Baroness opposite are focused upon persons in homes in England and Wales but not in Scotland.
There is some very odd drafting, quite apart from the typographical errors. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question in relation to persons in detention. A person, who may be noble, honourable or neither of those, who is in detention may own 10 properties. He is a profiteer. That is perfectly possible. Every one of those properties would be exempt under the amendment. I am not being frivolous. If I am correct—and that is how the amendment reads—this is another case of drafting which is simply not good enough. Noble Lords opposite have said that this is a complicated Bill and questioned the need for all the small print. They should look at their own small print. I look for an explanation from the noble Baroness on those rather tortuous matters.
Earl Russell: I should like to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 33A and 33B. While we are on the subject, I should like to ask for clarification of the definition of student used in the Bill in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 which reads:
"In this paragraph 'apprentice', 'student', 'student nurse' and 'youth training trainee' have the meanings for the time being assigned to them … by the Secretary of State".
That is certainly flexible. It is flexible to the point of contortionism. On this occasion all I intend to do is to ask for further guidance as to how the Government intend to apply that definition. I should be grateful in particular for advice on how the Government intend to handle the status of the part-time student.
Some other questions arise which have not yet been addressed. On Amendment No. 33B, I accept the Government's assurance. It is an intention to exempt properties owned by an educational institution or where all the occupants are full-time students. "Where all the occupants are full-time students" is a phrase which raises one or two marginal cases on which I should be grateful for guidance, and in particular the case of the married student or the student who is a single parent. How is it proposed to treat those cases?
In the case of a hall of residence I should like to know whether any liability rests on the educational institution. There is also the type of case which is particularly common among my own pupils; namely, where there is a flat shared by a considerable number of students. Who will be liable? Who will be liable when the population is changing? I look forward to seeing the answer in the record and I thank the noble Lord. I think I have literally read the noble Lord's lips.
Amendment No. 33A is a probing amendment. The difficulty arises from the reply given by the Minister to a Question for Written Answer to the effect that landlords in houses in multi-occupation will be liable. There are plenty of such houses in which some of the tenants are students and some are not. I believe that I see a faint doubt about the Minister's Answer in the other place; so I shall find the reference. It is worth
830
clarifying. It is a Written Answer from Mr. Key on 13th January 1992 so it cannot yet be regarded as out of date.
The problem is that if the landlord is liable, the landlord, I think we may safely presume, will seek to recover the tax. If some of his tenants are students and some of them are not, it is not to be presumed the landlord will seek to recover it only from the non-student tenants, unless he is actually under a duty to do so.
I recall a great many exchanges on this matter of passing on liability under the 1988 Act. Under that Act there was no doubt, at least in my mind, about the Government's good faith. The difficulty was that the Government had done nothing to make their own good faith binding on the landlord. Since it was not binding on the landlord, the landlord had naturally acted in his own commercial interests.
These are probing amendments but I should be grateful for some clarification of those points.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe it was my noble friend Lord Renfrew who said that these were very useful amendments. I agree with him. It is useful to discuss the variety of issues which arise from them at this Committee stage.
The amendments deal with the power in Clause 4 to exempt certain types of dwelling from payment of the council tax. Amendment No. 33 exempts all those dwellings which are subject to the criteria listed in new subsection (2A) proposed by Amendment No. 34 and empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to exempt other dwellings by order. My noble friend Lord Renfrew spotted the deliberate mistake made by the noble Baroness in drafting the amendment. We are all grateful. I assumed as well that it was Schedule 1 rather than Schedule 9.
The amendment is quite unnecessary. Dwellings which were previously the sole or main residence of the people in the groups listed—prisoners, hospital patients, patients in homes and people providing care —currently benefit from a standard community charge multiplier of zero; that is to say, they are exempt from the poll tax. Therefore I am pleased to tell the Committee that we intend to exempt from the council tax all those dwellings which are subject to a zero standard community charge multiplier.
With regard to the example quoted by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, who made the point of the prisoner with 10 homes, he would only be exempt for the home which was his sole or main residence as opposed to all the others.
The amendment should be rejected for one further reason. It proposes exemption only where dwellings have been unoccupied for less than 12 months. However, the groups listed currently benefit from an unlimited period of exemption. That will continue under the council tax. It is clear that our proposals are far less restrictive than those of the noble Baroness.
Amendments Nos. 33A and 33B deal with the exemption of student dwellings from the tax. I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that these amendments are unnecessary. We have already announced our intention to exempt student hostels and halls of residence from the tax. That will be

831
achieved by means of regulations to be made under Clause 4. We are at present consulting local authorities, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other higher education bodies about the precise terms to be used in the regulations.
We have also announced that houses and flats where all the adult residents are students will be exempt from the tax. That too will be set out in the regulations. That deals, I believe, with the noble Lord's question of who is going to be responsible if you have four or five students living in one residence. The answer is nobody, because the property is exempt. In addition, students will be eligible for personal discounts, so that where they live with non-students they will not add to the household bill.
Taken together these arrangements mean that students in halls, and those living alone or sharing a flat or house with other students, will not have to pay. Students living with their parents or in digs will not increase the bill for the household because of the personal discount. Students who choose to live with non-students will receive a personal discount, but in that case the property will not he exempt.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl talked about the landlord-tenant relationship. That shows, I believe, the noble Baroness's socialist tendencies and the great desire to meddle in the affairs of private individuals. It has to depend on the private contract made between the tenant and the landlord, whether the tenant is a student or not.
Where lots of students live in tenanted accommodation, it becomes exempt. Where a landlord lives with some students, the students themselves have a personal discount. Whether or not the landlord charges them rent to make up what he is paying in council tax entirely depends on the relationship between the two.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the Minister will permit me, that was not the example I gave. The question I asked was: where there was a non-resident landlord but the property he owned was occupied by a mixture of students and non-students, would he be responsible as landlord for the council tax, which he would then normally redistribute to the occupants of the house? I wanted some assurance, if assurance could be given, that the students, who were invisible, would continue to be invisible for council tax. Let us assume a house with six or eight people in it, perhaps three of them students. I wanted to be sure that the students were not carrying a proportion of the total property's council tax through an increased rent when they were invisible on the bill.
Lord Strathclyde: The point I was trying to make was that that depends on the relationship between the tenant and the landlord. The student is a tenant: he either agrees with the rent that he is charged or he does not. The point is that if the tenants are responsible for the community charge they agree among themselves how they are going to share the liability for the council tax. But each student will not increase the total bill if
832
there are fewer than two of them. If there are more than two adults in a house who are not students, they get charged the full amount.
Have I made that clear to the noble Baroness? If not, as it is a complicated matter it would perhaps be easier if I wrote to her and explained it line by line.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has made his views clear. I am not sure that his response entirely reflects the Bill as we understand it, but we will obviously study it. I suspect that he may at a later stage wish to amplify or amend his answer.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what was the definition of a student. That is very important. Students will be defined as they currently are for the purposes of the community charge; that is, those who are undertaking full-time courses of education at prescribed institutions, which will include universities, polytechnics and some others. Full-time means subsisting for at least a year and undertaking at least 24 weeks of study during an academic year and 21 hours of study per week. Part-time students may be in full-time or part-time work and can claim benefit. That is why they are not included for discounts or exemptions.
The noble Earl also asked about married students and student single parents. Currently non-student partners of students are able to claim housing benefit and it is intended that similar arrangements will apply under council tax rebates. Vulnerable students, including students who are lone parents, if they are liable, are able to claim housing benefit and also council tax benefit. I hope that that explanation clarifies the situation.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for a reply which was helpful on many points. However, perhaps he will forgive me if I ask for further clarification on one or two further aspects. I shall not argue with the general definition of student, as in the community charge legislation. I wish to ask for help with one point in those regulations with which I have had considerable personal difficulty. It is the definition of a postgraduate, in particular at what point a part-time postgraduate becomes eligible for exemption. I have sat for an hour with my departmental secretary who has to issue the certificates trying to work out what the regulations mean. The trouble is that they define full-time and part-time postgraduates in terms of a course and prescribed numbers of hours of study. In my subject at least that is not the way it is with postgraduates; they are not engaged in undertaking a course but in undertaking research. In fact, they are doing piecework; one sees the finished product but one does not usually know how many hours it took to produce. I should be grateful if the definition could be looked at again. It would be most helpful in practice.
I was also be grateful for the answer about students living together. One slightly awkward question occurred to me. I do not know what answer the Minister will give; indeed, I do not know what answer he ought to give. I thought about a case among my recent pupils: four students and one secretary are living together in a flat. Will the one secretary bring

833
the council tax with her, like the plague, and make all the others liable? If that is so, will it encourage the creation of a student ghetto? I appreciate the problem and the fact that the line has to be drawn somewhere. However, if there are to be such side effects perhaps we should think about them before we reach them.
I still have a slight misgiving about the problem of the landlord. I should be grateful if I could have a copy of the Minister's letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Perhaps I may try to see whether I have understood what the Minister said. There will be no personal council tax liability attaching to the student but the property element of it will be paid by the landlord. Therefore, some share of the property element may in practice be passed on by the landlord to the student because no restriction is legally being put upon it. Is that a correct understanding of what the Minister said? If not I apologise.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Earl asked a number of detailed questions. First, I understand that at present postgraduates are regarded as students and would therefore be exempt. If there is a problem, as there clearly appears to be, I shall be happy to look at it and write to the noble Earl.
The noble Earl asked whether the secretary would bring the plague—in the form of the council tax—with her. I believe that she would bring the council tax with her but she would be eligible for the single person discount, which is helpful.
I do not quite follow the noble Earl's explanation regarding what he thought I had explained concerning whether the landlord lived with the tenant. I have already said that I shall write to the noble Baroness about that. It is complicated. It is clear in my mind but I am incapable of making it clear to anybody else.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: First, I apologise for the typographical error in the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for pointing that out.
In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, the amendment seeks to mirror the exemptions which currently exist under poll tax legislation—neither more nor less. The concept of a prisoner with 10 properties had not occurred to me but I suppose that, given the extent of white collar fraud, it is reasonable. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, responded fully to that and we welcomed his response.
As regards the Minister's reply on Amendments Nos. 33A and 33B, we shall all be interested to see the contents of the letters. I was seeking to pursue the problem of houses of mixed occupation—students and non-students—with more than two non-students. For the purposes of the council tax, students are invisible. This amendment seeks to ensure that students do not end up paying part of the council tax from which the Bill exempts them. That is the issue. We wish to prevent them from being charged for a share of the bill for which the Government do not intend that they should pay any part.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, did not represent fully what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, intended to say about the 50 per cent. contribution because, for
834
the purposes of the tax, students are invisible. If there are enough of them, the entire property becomes exempt. Therefore, in that context, we shall wait to see what the regulations contain.
Finally, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to return to comments made by the Minister on two earlier amendments which I moved.
Lord Hesketh: Order, order!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, I shall follow up the matter through correspondence as we believe positions were misrepresented and we are seriously perturbed about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33A to 36 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert:
("and of which the resident has an income or assets falling below a value or values prescribed for this purpose by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed the weakness of Clause 4. That has been made very clear. Subsection (3) states that a class of dwellings, for the purposes of Clause 4, can be:
"prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit".
In other words—I use the classic phrase—the Secretary of State may do what he likes. I do not know who is attempting to kid whom because subsection (4) states:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3)" —
in other words, the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of dwellings by reference to such factors as he sees fit—
"a class of dwellings may be prescribed by reference to one or more of the following factors—

(a) the physical characteristics of dwellings;

(b) the fact that dwellings are unoccupied".

Members of the Committee who are not familiar with my modest, constructive and helpful way of seeking to amend legislation may choose to misinterpret what I am saying. However, we are saying that we are not trying to overturn the structure of Clause 4. We are seeking simply to add a third factor which the Secretary of State may use in prescribing exempt dwellings. We are seeking to add the provision that they should be dwellings,
"of which the resident has an income or assets falling below a value or values prescribed for this purpose by the Secretary of State".
Or, as in Amendment No. 38,
"the fact that dwellings are occupied or owned by persons",
who qualify in that way. It is the least controversial way we can think of of bringing into the Bill a condition which we consider to be essential to property legislation; that is, the provision that it should have adequate regard to ability to pay as expressed through income.
Without even seeking to overturn the weak and wide-open provisions of Clause 4, we hope that the Government will not feel it necessary to oppose the

835
possibility that the Secretary of State may add these conditions to those provided under subsection (4). I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: Did I hear the noble Lord on the road to Damascus? Did I hear him say that the provision must have adequate relation to ability to pay through income? Has the noble Lord been converted to the idea of a local income tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl should come in and listen to his colleagues at earlier stages of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, tried that one on. He tried to quote against me a statement which I made in the House in 1988 to which I entirely subscribe now. I have always thought that property tax by itself was inadequately progressive. A property tax as provided under this legislation is far too inadequately progressive. Income tax is adequately progressive, but a combination of property tax and regard for ability to pay through income is Labour Party policy and one which does not require any road to Damascus.
Lord Strathclyde: That will certainly bear reading again. I am confused as to what Labour Party policy is. However, it is late at night and perhaps we should not delve too much into that at the moment.
Amendment No. 38 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a category of exempt dwellings by reference to the low income or assets of its residents. Amendment No. 37 appears to have a similar intention.
It would be possible to exempt people on low incomes from the tax without the amendment; however, the Government have no such intention. Instead we intend to ensure that such people can claim rebates of up to 100 per cent. of their bills. The effect will be the same, in that those with incomes at or below the income support level pay nothing. But by making such arrangements through benefits we can ensure that there is only a gradual increase in liability as income rises. If instead we exempted people on low incomes they might suddently face a large council tax bill simply because their income had risen by a pound or two. I cannot believe that that is the effect the noble Lord wants. No doubt he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall, but not for that reason. The Minister is proposing a circuitous way round to achieve that which we want to achieve; that is, proper recognition of the ability to pay as a criterion for local government finance. I readily concede that we have probably been too clever by half in attempting to introduce an amendment of this kind into a clause which is itself as defective as Clause 4. We shall find some other way of expressing the strong views we hold regarding ability to pay. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Council tax in respect of dwellings]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 46, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) In respect of the financial year 1992–93 each local authority shall impose a tax payable in respect of the taxable income of each person resident.").
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackie. It has a relationship with Amendment No. 207 which no doubt we shall debate next week. I learned a phrase from my noble friend on another occasion last year when he said, "What I am about to say has been said before in this debate but it will do your Lordships no harm to listen to it again". I am perhaps pre-empting that by saying now what he will no doubt say on Amendment No. 207, if he is able to be present.
The amendment provides an opportunity to apologise to the Scots for having introduced the poll tax a year earlier, and having experimented in Scotland, but not ending it a year earlier than will be the case in England and Wales. The Conservatives had no mandate to introduce the poll tax in Scotland. They did not pay heed to the warnings of the consequences. They did not listen to the Scots at the time of the 1987 general election. The electoral events in Scotland over the past few years, and in particular the past few months, should have been no surprise to anyone.
In Scotland as elsewhere the poll tax has caused hardship. There have been difficulties in collection. Public opposition has been overwhelming. The Scots have had to live with that position for a year longer than people in England and Wales. It was rather ignored that Scotland was suffering during that period.
It is perhaps a little ironic that the poll tax is to be replaced by a property tax, because it was the problems caused by the rates which led to the hurried introduction of the poll tax four years ago.
One quick method of relieving the Scots of the burden of the poll tax for a year before the council tax would be to apply a local income tax. That would mean an end to the huge waste and cost of collection of the poll tax and the hardship of the 20 per cent. provision. Members of the Committee may say that it is a grand and meaningless gesture. It is a grand and symbolic gesture. It would be very symbolic to the people of Scotland if the Committee accepted a mechanism for relieving them of the burden of the poll tax a year earlier to compensate for their having suffered it a year earlier. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Since the subject of a local income tax has been raised, I should like to say a few words. I have given the problem much thought. One of the main reasons why I dislike any form of local income tax is because that tax will be collected at one's place of work. I believe that the functions of the local authority are mainly to do with someone's home. One of the side effects of having a local income tax is, in my opinion, that the cities would become very much wealthier and the country areas very much poorer. The council tax—or the property tax—must be associated with one's place of residence.
Lord Strathclyde: Naturally I listened very carefully to the exposition by the noble Baroness of the benefits for local income tax. To the advocates of such a system it appears to be the simple panacea to all the problems of local government finance. However, I must urge the Committee not to be lured by such siren voices, because I fear that in practice a local income tax would prove to be complicated to administer, unwieldy and unfair.
The noble Baroness talked about Scotland suffering. I did not hear any evidence to support that view. The noble Baroness suggested that we should bring local income tax forward into Scotland, presumably as an experiment—turning the Scots into guinea pigs one more time. That is surely not a very good idea, coming from the Liberal Democrats.
The noble Baroness also mentioned a symbolic gesture. We do not need any more symbolic gestures in Scotland. We need hard solutions to difficult problems. This amendment is one where the noble Baroness and the Government will have to agree to differ.
Baroness Hamwee: That does not surprise me. Perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. Local income tax would be collected for those on PAYE in relation to work because Schedule E tax is dealt with on a salary basis. But the tax is not levied on the place of work. The tax, like any other form of income tax, would be levied on the individual. Where he happens to work would not be relevant. It would not mean moving substantial funds into the cities, away from the country.
838
With regard to the evidence that Scotland has suffered, I cannot speak as eloquently as any Scot would on that point. But I do feel that it is a little tongue in cheek to say that there is no evidence of that. The Scots have been very vocal on it and the latest evidence is that 8,000 or so souls in Kincardine and Deeside have been saying very eloquently that they have not been happy at the way they have been governed. One of the most obvious ways in which they have been misgoverned over the past few years has been through the poll tax. What is the formula at this late hour? Perhaps I should ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 73 agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NATIONAL PARKS REVIEW: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  NATIONAL PARKS REVIEW: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE BILL: DRAFT REGULATIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE BILL: DRAFT REGULATIONS
  CONTAMINATED LAND: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
  CONTAMINATED LAND: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
  FORMER HOME OFFICE BUILDING, WHITEHALL
  FORMER HOME OFFICE BUILDING, WHITEHALL
  SOMERSET HOUSE
  SOMERSET HOUSE
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: REPUBLICS
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: REPUBLICS
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: UK PREMISES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: UK PREMISES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: MEMBERSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL BODIES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: MEMBERSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL BODIES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: DIPLOMATS
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: DIPLOMATS
  BANK HOLIDAY ARRANGEMENT
  BANK HOLIDAY ARRANGEMENT
  DENTAL SERVICES
  DENTAL SERVICES
  "OWN RESOURCES" OF EC: UK ABATEMENT
  "OWN RESOURCES" OF EC: UK ABATEMENT
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: FUTURE ROLE
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: FUTURE ROLE
  COMPANY ACCOUNTS: EC DIRECTIVE
  COMPANY ACCOUNTS: EC DIRECTIVE