Sitting of 23 January 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY
  (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 30 January.
  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Tuesday 28 January at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Crime
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of crimes committed in 1991.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): A total of 5.1 million notifiable offences were recorded by the police in the 12 months to the end of September 1991, the latest period for which firm figures are available.
    Mr. Hardy: Does not that answer confirm that the increase in crime in the past 12 years has been greater both in proportion and in number than the increase in crime over the previous 12 centuries? Will not the millions of victims of crime feel that the 1979 Conservative law and order policies are humbug? Do not the upholders of law have daily experience of the fact that the greedy society so desired by Conservative Members must inevitably be a bad one?
    Mr. Patten: The Home Office research and statistics department is excellent and produces very good figures, but unfortunately we do not have on record the figures for 12 centuries ago. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman that crime has increased throughout the western world during the past half century. The hon. Gentleman should first reflect on the fact that, in his own area of South Yorkshire, the figures to which I have referred show that the incidence of sexual and violent crimes has been going down, not up. He should further refer to and reflect upon the continuous Labour search for excuses for crime rather than for the introduction of any sensible policies to deal with crime. In the end, it is down to a person's individual choice whether to be bad and to commit crime. That cannot be blamed on social factors.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate what percentage of those interesting crime figures are the result of members of the Labour party asking people to break the law?
    Mr. Patten: I referred earlier to the excellence of the Home Office research and statistics department when I explained that we do not keep crime figures for the past 12 centuries. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting thought; perhaps I should ask the Department to look into it.
    Mr. Hattersley: Why has crime in this country risen by an average of 6 per cent. per year since the war, but by 18 per cent.—three times the usual average—in the past two years?
    Mr. Patten: Being assaulted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on such issues is rather like being attacked by a bread and butter pudding. It looks very substantial on the surface, but when one looks below the surface, one finds nothing of any substance. The right hon. Gentleman's question contains its own answer. If the right hon. Gentleman would only himself address the causes of crime, he would realise that they would certainly not be solved by the suggestion made at the Labour party press conference this morning—that we should empty our prisons to pay for more police. That is what was said by the Labour party which in 1979 left the police forces of this country 8,000 under strength.
    Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take a point of order. However, as we shall have to live with each other for the next few months in an electioneering atmosphere, I refer hon. Members to "Erskine May" on moderation in language.

    Public Order Act 1986
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the chief constable of Essex to discuss proper implementation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the Thurrock parliamentary constituency.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The implementation of section 39 is an operational matter for the chief constable.
    Mr. Janman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the ever-increasing frustration and anger among hundreds of my constituents in Grays, Tilbury and South Ockendon, who almost on a weekly basis have to put up with large invasions of mobile itinerants on land near where they live? At the very best, the itinerants create a great deal of filth and rubbish, which the landowner or the council has to clear up. At the worst, they have an unfortunate impact on the local crime figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that chief constables across the country have declared a policy of not invoking section 39 if a civil remedy is available to the landowner? Does he agree that the law should be changed so that the police have a duty rather than just a power to act under section 39?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that a great many people suffer a great many problems because travellers, illegal

    475
    trespassers and wandering folk settle on land. Section 39, however, is specifically designed to deal with aggravated trespass. It is not designed to undermine the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which requires local authorities to provide official gipsy sites for those who normally resort to the area. If a local authority does what it is supposed to do under those Acts, it has access to the criminal law to deal speedily and effectively with those who settle unlawfully on land.
    Mr. Sayeed: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but does he understand that there is a particular problem with certain councils, such as Avon county council? In the 23 years that that council has been in existence, it has not complied with the 1968 Act. As a consequence, section 39 is useless because the council will not move people off its land. Therefore, it is essential that people who live around the land, and are thus directly affected, should be protected under section 39 so that they can use the law to move people on.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes the point: it is his local authority's duty to comply with the 1968 Act and not for the chief constable to bend section 39 of the 1986 Act.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the operation of the Sunday trading laws.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It remains uncertain whether the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 continue to form part of our law. But as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained in answer to a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 27 November 1991, those provisions are not therefore suspended. Parliament has placed the primary responsibility for their enforcement on local authorities and it is for them to decide their own course of action.
    For our part, we intend to bring forward proposals for reform of the Sunday trading law once the legal position is clear.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister recall telling the House that the four criteria for the reform of Sunday trading were that it should be practicable, enforceable, and acceptable to the country and that it should command the support of the House? Yesterday the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was overwhelmingly given its First Reading with a majority of 200, with all-party support. Does not the Minister think that it is time to ensure that that Bill is put on the statute book to safeguard what Churchill once described as the greatest of British institutions?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the anxiety of the House about the state of Sunday trading. I read the ten-minute Bill yesterday. I apologise for not being on the Front Bench for the debate. The result was interesting and certainly one which I shall study carefully. However, it would be foolish to introduce legislation before we know the outcome of the European Court of Justice declaration.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's position puts all the
    476
    responsibility as to whether to prosecute on local authorities? Many authorities find that enormously expensive. Are the Government prepared to put up money to assist local authorities if they decide to prosecute in the interests of what they believe ought to be the law, and in fact is the law?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It has never been the case that central Government would indemnify local authorities for expenditure when they are already given money through the revenue support grant to enable them to undertake their responsibilities, and that is not a way forward. Nevertheless, local authorities may enforce the law as it stands.
    Mr. Loyden: Is not the Minister passing the buck? There is widespread concern and strong opinion throughout the country that the Government are handling this issue most inappropriately. When will the Government take decisive action and end the hell of a mess in that section of industry?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but it is not so easy as Opposition Members keep asserting. If legislation were introduced at this point it is possible that it would fall foul of the decision by the European Court of Justice and thus be impracticable and a waste of public funds.
    Mr. Harris: While accepting that the tremendous European complication about this cannot just be wished away, will my right hon. Friend take note of yesterday's vote and appreciate that a significant number of Conservative Members voted for that Bill. A factor for some of us in so doing was the fact that we have been saddened and sickened at the supermarkets' attitudes in exploiting the European difficulty. When studying possible reforms and changes in the law, will she consider that the decision to open on Sunday is taken not by local supermarket managers but nationally by their boards, and that if there is any change in the law they should be the ones to be prosecuted?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), was on the Front Bench yesterday and has reported to me the content of the ten-minute Bill and the vote. I fully understand the considerable cross-party support for what was said in the ten-minute Bill, but it is important that we wait a few months to see where the European Court comes down. It will not take long and the Government will then be able to take all those factors into account. One would hope that major retailers will be clear in their minds about their activities and the consequences that may accrue.
    Mr. Randall: How many of the major companies that broke the law at Christmas and were not prosecuted are contributors to Conservative party funds?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The last time I debated Sunday trading with the hon. Gentleman, he made the perfectly ludicrous suggestion that his party would have a conference on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] It does not seem to me that there is any need for me to answer his silly question on the subject.

    Murder (Provocation)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the law relating to provocation as it affects cases of murder.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker)rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber below the Gangway.
    Mr. Baker: I am aware of concerns that have been expressed about this aspect of the law. The defences to murder have been reviewed on several occasions, most recently in 1989 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment. There has been no recommendation to change the rule that provocation applies only where the defendant acts with a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. Any change must not make it easier for a defendant to escape conviction for murder in cases where there is a planned or revenge killing.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest in the subject. Is he aware that among women serving life sentences in Bullwood Hall women's prison for murdering their husbands there are several whose lack of command of English meant that they were not aware that there was anywhere that they could run to, that some women who had tried to run away from extreme brutality were dragged back by their families, and that some were terrified of leaving their children with a brutal partner, and that therefore they had to wait until they could do something about it and were driven to commit murder? Technically, they did not qualify for the defence of provocation, but their cases are heart-rending and should evoke a change in attitude towards the type of defence that women in those circumstances can claim.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has been to see me about this matter with a group of colleagues. I am sure that she will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly those among the ones that she has mentioned that might come before me.
    I understand the concern that has been expressed in the House and in the country about this. However, I cannot condone, as a response to violence, the killing of the person who does that violence. There is concern about the law in this area and I believe that the arguments on it are finely balanced. Before we rush into changes to the homicide law, we must ensure that such changes do not do more harm than good. I assure the House that I shall keep this matter under the most careful review.
    Mr. Ashley: I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary received a deputation and undertook to consider taking on my Bill. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman could not go any further at that time, but is he aware that his argument that a change in the defence of provocation might allow for revenge killings is wrong and invalid because juries would not accept it in the case of revenge killings? Will he bear it in mind that the law as it stands does great injustice and that many women are suffering life sentences that they should not be suffering? Will the Home Secretary think again, please?
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he presented his case to me, although I hope that he did not take away from our meeting any
    478
    belief that I was totally persuaded by the argument that he put forward. The House of Lords Select Committee looked into this matter just two years ago. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Committee recommended that the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility and the offence of infanticide should be retained.
    This is an important matter, particularly as it affects violence, and violence more perpetrated on the woman than on the man. One must not open up the possibility for either partner in a marriage or a relationship to murder their partner, not as a result of a sudden, temporary loss of control, but as a result of a careful, well thought out and premeditated plan. That is why the balance of the argument in this matter is so fine.

    Europol
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss further progress in the Europol proposals.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Outline proposals for the establishment of Europol were approved at the meeting of the European Council in Maastricht in December 1991. Those proposals are now being developed and the United Kingdom has been in the forefront of police co-operation in Europe to combat the growing evil of international crime. Officials from all member states will be meeting regularly to develop the proposals and I shall be meeting my counterparts in June to review progress.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging response and for the work that he and his colleagues are doing on this. Does my right hon. Friend accept that to some extent there is a link between ever closer co-operation among police forces and Community arrangements with Interpol? The public should be spared some of the more bureaucratic checks and delays at ports and airports that will occur, for example, at Dover and elsewhere, when there are too many uniformed officials stopping people unnecessarily. There is a certain linkage, although there are many difficulties. As we are only a year away from the start of the single market, will my right hon. Friend reassure the public that unnecessary bureaucratic delays will not occur at our ports and airports, to the annoyance of the public?
    Mr. Baker: That goes rather wide of the question. I should make it absolutely clear that from 1 January 1993 we shall continue to maintain our frontier controls, particularly on matters of international crime, drugs and immigration. One does not want to occasion unnecessary delay in exercising those controls, but they must be sufficiently firm and rigorous to ensure that criminals who try to get into the country are detected and that illegal immigrants are similarly detected and prevented from entering the country.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable concern that the sort of co-operation that exists regarding the police is not subject to proper democratic scrutiny? Will he ensure that all discussions that take place are opened up for us to criticise and assist?
    Mr. Baker: As far as the police are concerned, I and my fellow Ministers are answerable to the House. There is a

    479
    good co-operation between the British police and police forces on the continent because more and more crime—particularly drugs crime—crosses frontiers. A vast amount of drugs are coming into Europe from north Africa, from central Asia through the Balkans, and from South America. It is important that we work closely with our European partners on this. For example, we have 30 drugs liaison officers—British police and Customs officers—in more than 19 countries. The key factor is the exchange of information to deal with international crime.

    Traffic Wardens
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what encouragement he is giving police forces to recruit and use traffic wardens for traffic control duties, particularly to meet seasonal needs.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The recruitment of traffic wardens is the responsibility of individual police authorities and their deployment is an operational matter for individual chief officers.
    Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he give some information about the way in which the Government can encourage the greater recruitment of traffic wardens up to full complement in police forces and encourage the better use of those wardens so that they make the best possible contribution to the maintenance of traffic flow and the release of police officers for the control of crime?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Home Office funds 51 per cent. of traffic warden service costs through the police grant. As my hon. Friend no doubt knows, under the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities will be able to seek power to recruit and deploy their own parking attendants in designated areas, and any fines levied go to local authorities to help defray the costs of that service.

    Bail Offenders
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to deal with repeated offenders who commit crimes while still on bail; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: We are examining carefully the evidence from a number of recent studies by the police and others of the extent of offending on bail, and considering, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others, what further action might reduce offending by people released on bail. We will announce our conclusions in February.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more could be done in the first instance to prevent offences? Is he aware of the excellent work being done by Crime Concern? Will he produce his White Paper on the subject soon? Is he aware that one Bolton youth was arrested 30 times last year for car crimes?
    Mr. Patten: The answer to the first of those three points is that the Home Secretary will shortly be publishing his promised and much looked forward to paper on criminal prevention. The answer to the second is that I agree that Crime Concern, which enjoys all-party support in the House, does excellent work. The answer to the third is that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced new guidelines
    480
    which can be passed from the magistrates to the social services to ensure that from October this year juveniles can be remanded in custody under certain conditions not previously available to the courts.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that not only juveniles but adults are committing crimes while on bail and that many crimes now being committed by adults while on bail involve firearms? Does he agree that it is time we had a real clampdown on the possession of firearms throughout society, remembering that the problem will not be cured unless the Home Office takes strenuous action in relation to the legal as well as the illegal holding of firearms?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the recent rise in the number of crimes involving firearms. There were about 9,000 last year, of which about only 4 per cent. involved replica firearms. We have the toughest sentences available in any country in western Europe for the carrying of firearms. Carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime can attract up to a life sentence. New sentences became available to the courts with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and quite right too.
    Mr. Barry Field: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the delegation that I led to the Lord Chancellor to consider the problem of bail bandits and light sentencing by Crown courts, and to the concern in my constituency that the Hampshire police authority is short changing the Isle of Wight in terms of the number of constables on the beat?
    Mr. Patten: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is that when the Secretary of State made his announcement about the additional real 1,000 police coming on stream this year, he said that 80 per cent. of them should go straight on to the beat. The answer to his first point is that it is absolutely clear that a number of people who break their bail conditions are remanded in custody when they are brought back to the court; but that happens in only about six out of 10 cases, and in four out of 10 cases when those who break their bail conditions are brought back to the court, it seems that they are no longer remanded in custody but are again let out on bail.
    Mr. Hattersley: On the subject of repeated offences, will the junior Minister now say why crime has risen on average by 6 per cent. each year since the war but rose by 18 per cent. last year?
    Mr. Patten: There are a number of reasons for crime. You, Mr. Speaker, would not permit me to give a full answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, which reminds me of a minute that I sent out, when I went to the Home Office in 1987, to the then permanent secretary. It simply said, "Please, what causes crime?" Reasonably enough, I have never had an answer. The decisions of individual men and women to commit bad acts is what causes crime. It is no good the Labour party seeking again and again—as it did this morning—excuses for why people offend. Rather, it should look for ways of dealing with those people when they have offended and ways of preventing offending.
    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance yet to read the excellent report submitted to him by the chief constable of Northumbria about the problem of constant reoffending on bail? Is he aware that that

    481
    problem is made worse by a small hard core of young criminals who offend again and again, but that that is not always known to the justices? What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take?
    Mr. Patten: As I said in answer to the main question, in the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will make in February, we shall be able to give a fuller answer than I can give now. We have in the Home Office a copy of the very helpful report by the chief constable of Northumbria and we have also been greatly assisted by the work of the members of the Police Federation, who have co-operated in the analysis of the serious problem of offending on bail.

    Life Imprisonment
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the guidelines for the period of imprisonment to be served before prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment will be released on licence.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The main considerations in deciding whether to release such a prisoner are whether he or she has been detained long enough to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the offence and whether the potential risk to the public is judged to be acceptable.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister will be aware of my concern about the period of imprisonment served by persons who murder members of the security forces. A clear disparity exists between the guideline in England and Wales of 20-plus years' imprisonment and the practice in Northern Ireland of about 13 years' imprisonment before murderers of soldiers and policemen are released. Does the Minister agree that if that issue came before the European Court of Human Rights, under the reasoning in the Dudgeon case, the court would almost certainly hold that it is contrary to the anti-discrimination article in the convention to have two different regimes operating within one country? Would it not, be advisable, therefore, to have a uniform regime—which need not necessarily be the same as either existing regime—rather than wait until such a system is imposed on us?
    Mrs. Rumbold: What the European Court of Justice may decide is a matter of pure speculation. In essence, the matter is for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some classes of cases, retribution and deterrence are never satisfactory? In the case of terrorist crimes, it is about time that we had a sentence of indefinite imprisonment until terrorism ends.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. We regard murders committed in this country by terrorists as deserving a minimum of 20 years' imprisonment for those people. That marks the public's revulsion at acts of gratuitous violence against innocent victims. No matter for how long a period lifers are detained, the Home Secretary will release those people only if he considers that it is safe to do so.

    Parliamentary Representation
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the level of parliamentary representation from England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: In the past 12 months, we have received four letters on this subject from hon. Members. A private Member's motion was debated in the House on 8 March 1991.
    Mr. Dunn: I wish to put two propositions to my right hon. Friend: first, the English are under-represented in the House; and, secondly, the Scots are over-represented here. If my right hon. Friend agrees with either or both contentions, what will the Government do about that?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Occasionally, when I am ironing, I consider the possibility of having a constituency which is called Mitcham, Morden and Mole Valley. That is not, however, a possibility, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) represents an area a little bit down the road in the county of Surrey. I am told that the same considerations of constituency difficulty, demography and geography would apply to rearranging the constituencies within Scotland. It is for that reason, I believe, that the Government have decided that we should maintain the present system.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Dartford—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will pay attention for a moment. Is the Minister aware that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to worry about the level of representation in England because every time a Tory is defeated in Scotland he flees the country, comes down here and tries to get a Tory seat? I refer, for example, to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), Ian Sproat, Michael Ancram, and Gerry Malone. The problem for the hon. Member for Dartford is that, once he has been defeated at the next election, he will be replaced as a candidate by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that those Scotsmen who come down here to represent English constituencies are the best of the Scotsmen, who choose to come down here to represent one of the 523 constituencies in this country.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that there has been a large influx of people into Dorset, including many people from Scotland and from Wales. If my hon. Friend will look at the recommendations already coming from the Boundary Commission, she will see that it recommends that there should be eight rather than seven seats in Dorset. That would have some benefit in the forthcoming election if she could push it through. I wonder whether she can.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The whole House will be very relieved to know that such a matter is not entirely in a Minister's hands. I understand that, if that change occurs, the Conservative party will certainly benefit by an extra constituency.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that when the wishes of the people of Scotland are reflected in the decision to set up a Scottish parliament, it will indeed

    483
    make sense to reduce the representation of Scots in the House? Does she recognise that the inequity and injustice done to her party through, for example, no Conservative Members of Parliament being returned in 12 Glasgow constituencies would be redressed by the granting of proportional representation throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's arguments that to have proportional representation would necessarily persuade Glaswegians to vote Conservative. I hope that the Government's policies will persuade Glaswegians to think carefully about whether to vote Conservative in the next general election.
    Sir Peter Emery: Seriously, as the Boundary Commission proceeds with its report over the next 10 years, would not it be correct to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom had the same proportion of representatives? That would solve the whole problem.
    Mrs. Rumbold: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter has been discussed quite recently within both the Government and the Home Affairs Select Committee. Equitable representation is very hard to achieve. When the Boundary Commission looks at these matters over every 10 years or so, demography and demographic conditions have to be considered, and it is less easy than it appears on paper simply to provide consistency in terms of the demographic relationship of the people living in the country and the number of Members representing them in the House. Inevitably, it would mean that there would be more and more people coming into the House to represent constituencies unless some kind of control were exercised.
    Mr. Darling: I think that the Minister is saying that the Government's view is that the basis of representation should remain the same—in which case, I am glad. Will she tell some of her hon. Friends that a recent independent study has shown that if the basis of representation in Scotland were equated with that in England, the Conservative party in Scotland would cease to be an endangered species and become an extinct species? Some of the remarks made by Conservative Members show the foresight and planning of the dodo.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I suspect that these matters will be discussed on a number of occasions in the future, but the Opposition should not be too complacent about the attitudes and voting patterns of those north of the border for ever and a day.

    Vehicle Security
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from motor car manufacturers regarding their intentions to improve motor car security.
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on initiatives taken to improve vehicle security.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have had three meetings with car manufacturers. I will be meeting them again in March. I have urged manufacturers to fit to all new cars dead-locks, immobilisation devices and visible identification numbers. I am pleased that they have responded very positively.
    484
    Car crime, principally by young males, accounts for nearly 30 per cent. of all recorded crime. Our major crime prevention campaign this year will be against car crime, and the courts will soon have available the additional penalties under the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for that reply. When the Home Secretary meets the car manufacturers in March, will he impress on them the seriousness of the situation and consider compelling them to fit such devices as standard, bearing in mind that, last weekend alone, £100,000 worth of damage was caused by car theft in my constituency?
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. When I first met the car manufacturers, they did not appear to be taking the matter very seriously at all, but my last meeting with them revealed that they are now much more prepared to make their cars more secure. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Whether we can make it compulsory for cars to be fitted with such devices is a matter for the European Commission. My Department and the Secretary of State for Transport have already made submissions to the Commission that a standard high level of security—as high as we have in Britain—should be enforced across Europe.
    Mr. Roger King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in talking to the manufacturers about improved vehicle security. Will he tell the House what support he has had for his additional measure, the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, which will surely go a long way towards stopping the theft of motor vehicles? Will he assure the House that he has had the unreserved support of the Opposition during the passage of that Bill?
    Mr. Baker: Regrettably, we did not receive very much support because, in Committee, the Opposition voted against the major proposals in the Bill. That is the trouble with the Labour party: one has to distinguish between its rhetoric and reality when it comes to law and order. This morning, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he wanted to see more policemen on the beat, yet when he was a member of the last Labour Cabinet he cut the number of policemen and left the police force under strength.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is about to launch a £5 million campaign involving the glitzy television commercials that have been his trademark in every office of state that he has held? Is not it a fact that he never learns from experience? Last year, his May campaign—national crime prevention week—cost £4.5 million, yet the three-months' figures for crime following that expenditure showed an upsurge in crime. When will the Government spend less on advertising and more on the police and crime prevention?
    Mr. Baker: We have increased expenditure on crime prevention and the police much more than the previous Labour Government, who cut it by 3 per cent. I can confirm, however, that on 11 February I shall announce a major campaign—car crime prevention year. It will be a highly successful campaign and will cost £5 million. It will be supported by BMW, Citroen, Ford, Honda, Peugeot, Renault, Rover, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volkswagen and Volvo and most of the major insurance companies in Britain. They are uniting with us to reduce crime.

    485
    The hon. Gentleman again raised the question of law and order. I shall be only too pleased to fight the next election on the basis of the record on law and order and to show that we have a very much better record than the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Favell: In reply to the main question, my right hon. Friend said that he had had discussions with motor vehicle manufacturers. Has he had any discussions with motor vehicle insurers? Many criteria are used to determine motor vehicle insurance premiums. Should not anti-theft devices be one of them? As someone who has recently paid an enormously increased premium, I think that that would be an excellent idea.
    Mr. Baker: I met the insurance companies of Britain on three occasions. In October, they issued a new set of tariffs which provide that a car owner who suffers a loss has to make a larger contribution and introduce the principle and concept of a premium reduction for certain security devices.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed to Prime Minister's Questions, may I remind the House of what I said on Tuesday? Questions on matters of policy should relate to policy options available to the Prime Minister. They should not consist of invitations to comment directly on the policies of other parties in the House, for which the Prime Minister has no responsibility.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Barnes: The Prime Minister has cut 110,000 training places in the past year. Furthermore, training schemes do not produce the skills or the qualifications for the jobs that are needed in Britain at this time. Is that because, as the Prime Minister said in another interview with Sue Lawley, from his point of view qualifications "are wholly useless"?
    The Prime Minister: Despite the unfavourable economic climate, both youth training and employment training continue to help young and unemployed people on a very substantial scale to go into further training and further education. Very large numbers of young people are being helped. We are investing enormous sums in training, in enterprise and in vocational education—two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was invested by the Labour party when it was last in government.

    Romford (Visit)
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to make an official visit to Romford.
    The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Essex among them.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that any time that he cares to come to Romford, Essex men and Essex women will throng the streets in their thousands? In the meantime, will he give my constituents an assurance that he welcomes the report of the three wise men on primary education, and that the Government fully subscribe to the importance of the three Rs? Will he confirm that it is our top priority to get back to the basics in education and to sweep away the leftist progressive teaching methods that, having been put to the test, have failed?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend couches his invitation to visit Essex in irresistible terms.
    The report that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday is extremely important. It challenges some of the teaching methods that have been used in recent years and it suggests that schools should concentrate on commonsense, practical teaching. I believe that that is what parents want and that it is the best way to ensure that children are taught the essentials. We certainly hope that both schools and teachers will adopt the proposals in the report.

    Engagements
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: The Prime Minister will be well aware of the appalling environmental problems in the Fal estuary arising from the water pollution after the closure of the Wheal Jane mine. I do not think that people in Cornwall want to allocate blame at the moment, but they do want to ensure that the environmental clean-up is carried out both in the short term and the long term without hold-ups. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no financial problems at any stage in ensuring that the long-term and short-term clean-ups take place?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the National Rivers Authority specifically to respond in the first instance to the sort of pollution incidents to which he refers—this one is a very serious incident. The NRA has been closely monitoring the situation since the mine closed. It had developed contingency plans before the incident and put them into effect when water in the mine began to overflow. I am sure that the NRA considers that it will be able to deal with the problem with the resources that it has.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports from the German chambers of commerce which show that German industry has invested £7.8 billion in this country

    487
    in recent years? Does not that demonstrate that low taxation, low inflation and good industrial relations are the basis for strong investment, including inward investment; and does it not also show that the future of this country is excellent under this Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen the important comments of the CBI, which set out the fact that Britain now attracts nearly half of all the inward investment from Japan that comes to the European Community. I believe that, by investing here, German and Japanese companies and those of other countries have shown their confidence in the British economy. It is a shame that some of the gloom and doom-mongers in this country do not share that confidence.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government the British economy is in its longest recession since the second world war?
    The Prime Minister: I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he will be pleased to hear what the European Community has to say, that the United Kingdom is the only country where signals of a sustained economic recovery are discernible, by contrast with a tendency towards gradual slackening of growth continuing in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal.
    Mr. Kinnock: Slightly closer to home, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British chambers of commerce today report that this is the seventh consecutive quarter in which the United Kingdom economy has suffered from recession, with levels of economic activity continuing to decline? Is not it clear that the recession caused by the Prime Minister's policies is continuing because of the Prime Minister's paralysis?
    The Prime Minister: The British chambers of commerce are clearly wrong about the seventh consecutive quarter. That would imply that the recession started in the second quarter of 1990, which it clearly did not, because output rose between the first and second quarters of 1990.
    I notice also that the president of the chambers of commerce said that British industry and commerce were on
    "an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession".
    Mr. Kinnock: Will not the Prime Minister refer to the report and listen to the voices of business and commerce from all over the country when they say:
    "A worsening position on employment expectations,"—
    higher job losses—
    "and a major down-grading of business confidence, however, give no cause for comfort in this survey"?
    How can the Prime Minister be so complacent and so indolent when he is receiving advice that something now needs to be done?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I quoted from the president of that particular group of chambers of commerce. The report itself says:
    "an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession."
    The right hon. Gentleman should look at other surveys and forecasters. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International
    488
    Monetary Fund both forecast recovery. What is equally clear among business men is that they have no enthusiasm whatever for a Labour Government. A survey of the top hundred British companies showed that 63 per cent. of them believed that recession would get worse under a Labour Government, and not one of them believed that it would get better.
    Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the House of the decision made yesterday to restore to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the gold deposited for safe keeping in the Bank of England but misappropriated by the then Labour Government with the support in the Division Lobby of the leader and Chief Whip of the Liberal party at that time?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that when I met President Landsbergis yesterday I was able to indicate that we would be returning the gold. As the House well knows, the Labour Government in 1967 ordered the gold to be sold. The then Conservative Opposition roundly opposed that, and I am delighted that this Conservative Government have been able to correct that smear of dishonour.

    United Nations
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.
    The Prime Minister: I shall chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Prime Minister confirm that 140 nations have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Tory Canada? Why cannot this Tory Government honour their pledge under the treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, which will mean the withdrawal of Polaris—which is literally cracking up—and the saving of £10 billion on Trident, to be spent on the national health service to care for lives instead of threatening them with mass murder?
    If nuclear non-proliferation—
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very unseemly.
    Mr. Cryer: Quite so, Mr. Speaker.
    If nuclear non-proliferation is good enough for the rest of the world, why is not it good enough for us?
    The Prime Minister: We seek to promote non-proliferation and disarmament, and that will be one of the matters to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting that I shall chair next week. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman who suggests that it would be appropriate at present for this country to scrap its nuclear weapons and Trident that to do so would leave the country wholly defenceless. That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may even be the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their secret hearts. It is not the right policy for this country, it is not the policy of the Government and I hope that the Opposition will make clear how many of their members support that policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament rather than a policy of secure defences for this country.
    Mr. Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend visits the United Nations, will he raise the issue of the RAF aircrew

    489
    who were shot down over the Gulf, some of whom came from west Norfolk? They were tortured, humiliated and abused in gross contravention of the Geneva convention. Is it time that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at the special Security Council meeting next week; it is certainly a matter which remains on our agenda.

    Engagements
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Douglas: The Prime Minister's view of an expanded Europea, Community, composed of many states in eastern Europea together with existing members, is extremely attractive, but will he contrast that with the instability within the United Kingdom because the aspirations of a nationwide Scotland are frustrated by its being unable to secure its independence and membership of the Community? Will he take steps to have that issue ventilated in a multi-question referendum of the people, which could perhaps be held in harmony with the general election?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the European Community. That is the right way forward for this
    490
    country, the European Community and the wider Europe which I hope in due course will join the Community. The hon. Gentleman spoke about devolution. The Union has served Scotland and England well. In terms of a debate, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has called for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and I hope that everyone will contribute to them.
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the top limit on national insurance contributions because of the plight in which that would place many of my constituents and people in neighbouring Blackpool who earn under £15,000 a year but during the holiday season earn more than £400 a week?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need no such encouragement. The policy suggested by my hon. Friend would hit many people on modest incomes who have bonus or overtime earnings and who occasionally earn above £390 a week. Such an impost would be quite contrary to the policies of the Government and the Conservative party and we shall not introduce any such policy.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House please tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Motions on the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order and the Electricity (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Prison Security Bill.
Motion on the Uncertificated Securities Regulations
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill.
THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports, followed by motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 31 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until Seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motions on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order and the African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 29 January to consider European Community documents Nos. 7573/91, 8122/91 and 10157/91 relating to satellite broadcasting standards.
[Wednesday 29 January 1992
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 7573/91 Satellite Broadcasting of Television Signals

(b) 8122–91 Programmes for High Definition Television Services

(c) 10157/91 Satellite Broadcasting of Television Signals

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xxx (1990–91), HC 24-ii (1991–92) and HC 24-v (1991–92)

(b) HC 24-iv (1991–92)

(c) HC 24-vii (1991–92)

Thursday 30 January
English Revenue Support Grant Reports

1. Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1992–93

2. Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England)

3. The Population Report (England) (No. 3)

4. The Special Grant Report (No. 3)

Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports

1. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (HC 151)

2. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 3) (HC 152)

3. Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (HC 153).]

Dr. Cunningham: May I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for responding so promptly to our request for debates on the revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? Will he assure us that, before the House rises tomorrow, we shall have the revenue support grant order documents for England available in the Vote Office? I realise that the debate is not until Thursday, but I am sure that it would be helpful to the House to have the documents that are the subject of the debate.
On the same subject, will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on the latest poll tax fiasco—the decision by the courts not to allow computer evidence to be used by local authorities in pursuit of more than 7 million claims for non-payment? Does not this latest poll tax mess confirm everything that we have said from the Dispatch Box about the grotesque inefficiency of this capricious and unfair tax? Ought we not to have a statement as soon as possible to help local authorities and to inform all those people who are paying the tax about exactly what the Government intend to do?
Why does not the Leader of the House help his hon. Friends and the Opposition by giving us more Supply day time? We are always hearing bogus claims by Conservative Members that they want more time to debate Labour party policy. We too should like to debate policies on industry, especially in view of the latest fall in industrial output and the awful news contained in the report of the Associated British Chambers of Commerce. But yet again the Leader of the House is denying the Opposition the opportunity to choose the subject for debate by not providing Supply day time. Will he assure us that he will provide some time the week after next?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the orders being brought forward. As he knows, it is necessary to debate them very soon. That is relevant to the question about Supply days, to which I shall return in a moment. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the orders will be published and will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow.
On his second point, about the community charge and its enforcement, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a considerable distinction between the community charge and the procedures in the magistrates courts when people do not pay their community charge and local authorities take action against them. The two are distinct. There is no reason why people should not pay their community charge: that is the most important point on the issue.
As for the proceedings in the magistrates courts, the Government are looking urgently at the matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are giving it great attention. There is nothing in that aspect which means in any way that people should not be paying their community charge, because there are many people on comparatively low incomes who may have to suffer because others are not paying. I hope that no one in the House will do anything but encourage people to pay the community charge.
On the third point, about Supply days, we had a debate only yesterday on economic matters; industrial matters could have been included in that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have two Supply day debates today. He will see from the business next week that there are a number of

493
matters which are very important, and he will see that there is private business. I shall see what I can do about another Supply day in the week after that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back Benchers, may I remind them that we have today two debates, both of which are heavily over-subscribed? I have no ability to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches today. Furthermore, there is another statement. I propose to limit business questions to go on until 4 o'clock, when we shall move to the next statement. May I remind the House that questions should be directed to business next week and not to wider issues for which there may be other opportunities?
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider, as there is no debate on the subject next week, the urgent necessity for a full debate on civil air transport policy, since the chairman of the Association of European Airlines and boss of Alitalia has warned that next summer, unless something urgent is done to overhaul air traffic control systems in Europe, the whole air transport industry may snarl up and gradually come to a halt?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that we are at the stage in the process where a large number of Bills are coming from the other place or from Committees. That business is taking a considerable amount of the time of the House, rightly and inevitably. I cannot therefore promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the subject.
Sir David Steel: May I refer the Leader of the House to the answer given by the Prime Minister a moment ago about the need for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee on the future government of Scotland? Will he use his good offices to try to get those debates under way? They are long overdue. The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to think that we can have them without a statement on Government policy on the future government of Scotland. That is what we want.
Mr. MacGregor: We have offered to have debates. My right hon. Friend has indicated that he would like to see them and has suggested that that is an appropriate way of having all the issues fully aired. I hope that discussions are under way to achieve that.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate early-day motion 448, standing in my name and supported by a substantial number of hon. Members from all parties, welcoming the Government's support for the repeal of the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution of the United Nations?
[That this House welcomes the decision of the United Nations general assembly to repeal the notorious U.N.G.A. Resolution 3379/75 of 10th November 1975, normally known as the 'Zionism is Racism' resolution; congratulates Her Majesty's Government for ensuring that the United Kingdom voted for repeal, just as it originally voted against the 1975 resolution; thanks President Bush for leading the diplomatic activity which produced the repeal of that infamous slur on the Jewish people; but notes with regret that 25 nations voted against repeal, including such totalitarian dictatorships as Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.]
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that resolution. As we have made clear, we warmly welcome the repeal of the resolution. We co-sponsored the repealing resolution and played a full part in ensuring that it was adopted by an overwhelming majority.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there have been very disturbing reports this week about Fisons' pharmaceutical production standards by the American Food and Drug Administration, but that British inspectors' reports are kept secret? As the public are the consumers of these goods, may we have a debate next week so that we can discuss that very important information?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate next week. The right hon. Gentleman has other ways of raising the matter, but I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend referred to the discussions that are to take place next Wednesday in European Standing Committee B on European satellite standards. He will be aware that the draft directive under discussion would, if implemented, commit the spending of many millions of pounds of European taxpayers' money to propagating a transmission system that virtually nobody in Europe would be able to watch. Expenditure of that magnitude might be a mere bagatelle to those who sit on the Opposition Benches, but the Department of Trade and Industry, and those who sit on this side of the House, are resisting that draft directive. Can my right hon. Friend find time for the whole House to debate that issue, so that a very clear message can be sent to the European Commission?
Mr. MacGregor: It would not be appropriate for the whole House to debate the matter, because the Standing Committee is to consider it next week. However, I would point out to my hon. Friend, who I know takes a great interest in these matters, that part of the new European Standing Committee process is that we very much hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House who have an interest in a particular subject will attend the meetings. In that way, they will be able to make their points. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to do that next week. Moreover, the report of the Standing Committee will eventually be debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. James Lamond: Could we have additional information, perhaps by means of a statement next week, about those whose homes are being repossessed? Only this morning, I tried to intervene on behalf of a constituent whose home is being repossessed. When I reminded the lending society of what we had been told last week in the House of Commons, I was told, "We do not know very much about it; discussions are continuing, and it will be some time before any decisions are made." In the meantime, many thousands of people are in the greatest anxiety about what will happen to them. Can we be given an update?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to see that one building society has now reached agreement on the mortgages-to-rents scheme. That has already been announced. He will also know that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the

495
Exchequer made his statement in December on the outcome of the talks with the building societies, we intimated that we should be introducing a Bill to deal with the social security aspects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has introduced that Bill today, and the House will have an opportunity to debate it shortly.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on the community care programme so that we can be told how it is to be imlemented by the Government? A number of my constituents and their relatives are very anxious about the proposed closure of Westwood hospital in Bradford. If that hospital is closed, there will be nowhere for mentally handicapped people to go, if community care is a failure, and I suspect that to be the case in many areas. This is an urgent and increasing problem. The Government ought to provide time for a debate on the subject.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noted that successive Governments have adopted a community care policy. Such a policy is now being implemented by the Government, with considerable expenditure. Spending on the social services has gone up faster, in real terms, than the number of elderly people. Nearly £2 billion is being spent to provide support for people in their own surroundings in the community. That policy involves considerable expenditure. I cannot promise a debate next week on the particular example that the hon. Gentleman gave.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the leader of Derbyshire county council, whose policies have led to redundancy for hundreds of teachers yet who has managed to ensure for himself a well-paid part-time job, at a salary equivalent to £40,000 a year, with the loss-making, council-controlled Derbyshire enterprise board? Is that not a unique example of the rat building himself a cosy lifeboat before abandoning the ship that he himself has sunk?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend will find many opportunities to draw attention to the great inadequacies of Derbyshire county council. I have certainly found much about it to criticise when visiting the county, not least when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I hope that my hon. Friend will find ways of raising that point in the House again.
Mr. Rupert Allason: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 546 on the subject of software piracy?
[That this House notes that the culture of criminality at Mirror Group Newspapers continues; expresses concern that much of the computer software used by the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror was illicit; welcomes the news that a substantial sum has been paid by MGN plc to the programme manufacturers in compensation; and urges MGN directors to consider resignation in recognition of the mismanagement perpetuated under Robert Maxwell and his successor.]
Will he please find time in the business of the House next week for a debate on the subject of software piracy and the continuing culture of illegality at Mirror Group
496
Newspapers? What advice would he give Sir Peter Parker, a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, who has suggested that he will clean that Augean stable?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand that, regrettably, the illicit use of computer software is widespread. I have indeed seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion. Copyright owners are actively enforcing their statutory rights against such activities in both the public and private sectors. The Government welcome the fact that several bodies have reached mutually acceptable agreements with the copyright owners.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I refer the Leader of the House to a matter of extreme urgency, which I referred to him on 11 December, regarding the total moratorium on public expenditure in Northern Ireland, both capital and revenue, and to the dire consequences of that for commerce, industry and employment? On 11 December, the right hon. Gentleman generously said that he would refer that matter to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the only reply that I have received is a letter that was dated the day before a certain written answer was tabled in the Library, giving no details whatsoever. It is absolutely imperative that at least the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, if not the House as a whole, should debate the fact that there is a total ban on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We are told that we could debate this in the spring estimates, but that would be too late in the fiscal year.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there has been no reduction in the total volume of public expenditure in Northern Ireland that is planned for this year. It is currently running at £6.5 billion. The moratorium relates to new contracts only and, at most, will last until the end of this financial year. Work on contracts already let is unaffected. Clearly, it is necessary to keep within the total public expenditure plans. That is part of good budgeting and that is why the moratorium has had to be introduced.
Mr. John Marshall: In our debates on the Education (Schools) Bill, will it be in order to refer to the threat to education standards and parental choice, the suggested abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, and to the threat of an increase in private school fees of 30 per cent?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that I am strongly supportive of the positive aspects of those policies, and would be extremely concerned at any suggestion that the policies of other parties might have a severe effect upon them. Given that the Education (Schools) Bill relates to the whole issue of greater choice for parents and to greater parental knowledge of what is available in our schools, I expect that some of his points will be within the terms of the Third Reading debate at least.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for an early debate on the minimum wage? Is he aware that 4.5 million people in this country would benefit from a minimum wage, of whom 80 per cent. are women? Before we get the usual propaganda from central office, will he explain why all our EC partners and our main competitors, such as Australia, New Zealand

497
and the United States, have a minimum wage which appears to cause them no problems? Is it not time that we came into the 21st century?
Mr. MacGregor: I would certainly be happy to find time for a debate on the minimum wage to enable us to refute the charge that so many of those other countries have minimum wage proposals precisely along the lines advocated by the Labour party.
Such a debate would also enable us to state the serious danger to jobs, including part-time jobs, and the big increase in unemployment that would result from a minimum wage. It would also enable us to bring out the fact that, as a result of the Labour party's support for the social chapter, national insurance contributions would also be brought to bear on many part-time workers, thus reducing their incomes. I would be happy to have such a debate, but it cannot be next week.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on the future management of Government business in the House? My right hon. Friend may have noted that the Leader of the Opposition has announced today that he predicts that a Labour Government after the general election would have a majority of 20. My right hon. Friend will also note that yesterday an amendment was tabled by 25 Labour Members in which they called for socialist policies, arms cuts, harnessing of the national savings—whatever that means—and restoration of so-called trade union rights. During such a debate, could not the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether he would capitulate to the demands of such a group, and, if not, how he would control it?
Mr. MacGregor: We do not need a debate on the management of the House to explore those points. Indeed, they were made effectively yesterday. There will be other opportunities for raising precisely those points without such a debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will find the time to do so. I am sure that he agrees with me that there is no basis for the Leader of the Opposition's expectation of such a majority.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Health about the alarming state of affairs at the John Radcliffe hospital at Bicester? In November last year, Fred Hobson, 62, with heart trouble, went in for a heart operation. He was there three days and was then turned away because there were not sufficient facilities. In December he went back and got the same treatment. In January, he was told not to come. Three days ago, he was turned away again. Will the Leader of the House make sure that those Tory spivs who run the health service in Oxfordshire are the ones who are turned away—rather than Fred Hobson, who was turned away from the hospital—and get the operation done?
Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can tell us where in Bicester there is a John Radcliffe hospital? No such place exists.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what is said here. I am sure that the Leader of the House will know about that.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know the details of that case, and it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman may not either. I know that the hospital is not in his constituency, so it is not
498
appropriate for him to seek ways of raising the matter in the House. Certainly, I would be happy to have many opportunities in the House to debate the great success and progress made under our national health service reforms.
Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend will have noted that, despite yesterday's debate on the autumn statement, there is still widespread ignorance among some hon. Members about the optimism about the United Kingdom economy shown by distinguished bodies abroad. With that in mind, I have a suggestion. Will my right hon. Friend consider, in advance of the next economic debate—I am sorry that it is not next week—tabling a list of quotations from bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Community, so that we can start the debate with the facts? That might help right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to conclude with the facts.
Mr.MacGregor: We can certainly consider that suggestion. I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would wish to consider it. But every time that favourable comments are made about the United Kingdom economy—including, for example, that made by the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce about the successful operation of German-owned companies in the United Kingdom—which contrasted with the view that it took of industrial relations in the 1970s, the Labour party seeks to shout them down because it does not want to know.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a debate next week on the plight of the homeless? Does he realise that, of the 180,000 homeless people, 156,000 are between 16 and 25, that one in four children are homeless and that 34,000 of them are in Scotland? Could he also do something about debating the 53,000 people now in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman said that one in four children were homeless, I am sure that he did not mean to say it. That is a ludicrous charge. We have debated these matters in the House. The Government have taken considerable steps to provide facilities for the homeless. There is not an opportunity for a debate on the matter next week, but it might be possible to make some remarks about it during Thursday's business. I cannot promise any debate next week.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House consider changing the order of business next week so that there may be an urgent debate on pensioners and unearned income? [Interruption.] Bearing in mind the Labour party's policy of imposing a 9 per cent. surcharge on unearned income over £3,000, we have a duty to tell millions of pensioners the disastrous effects that the Opposition's policies would have on their life style and means of survival. [Interruption.]
Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I do not see, within the terms of next week's business, the opportunity to debate that subject, but I hope that before too long we can yet again raise the question of what the Labour party is saying about tax on investment income, which would clearly affect many people with modest incomes, many with incomes well below £20,000. From the noises which

499
have just been made, it would once again seem that there is a considerable lack of clarity about the Opposition's tax policies. The more we hear from them, the more we realise that the amount of revenue is decreasing and therefore the gap between their expenditure and tax policies is getting greater.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the House early next week to clarify the major initiative, which he announced in the Liverpool Daily Post yesterday, to set up an all-Wales body, nominated by him, which would include representatives from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, local government and some hon. Members from the House, to—in the words of the statement—help him "to run Wales"? Should a statement on that matter not have been made to the House rather than leaked to the Liverpool Daily Post? If that is Government policy, surely we need a statement at an early date.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: May we have a debate on attempts to suppress democratic discussion of vital national issues in light of the decision of Mirror Group Newspapers—for so long, the voice of Robert Maxwell—to refuse paid advertising from a political party and consequently deny their hard-pressed pensioners some revenue?
Mr. MacGregor: If I can guess at what my hon. Friend is referring to, if the group will not take the advertising, we shall certainly get the case over in many other ways to the people who are likely to be affected by Labour's tax and spending policies.
Mr. Dave Nellist: May I return the Leader of the House to the issue that I raised last week—the illegal use of computer evidence in magistrates courts? He told me last week and the shadow Leader of the House today that the Government were giving that matter urgent consideration. Has he seen early-day motion 539, which I tabled last night after the judgment given by the senior stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Christopher Bourke, after five days study?
[That this House notes the decision of Mr. Christopher Bourke, the Clerkenwell stipendiary magistrate, on Tuesday 22nd January, to reject the use of computer records in magistrates' courts as amounting to hearsay evidence; believes that this stems from the failure of the Home Office to issue the appropriate commencement order to the Civil Evidence Act 1968; believes that, in regard to poll tax cases, the Government's options are limited, to either not extending the legal use of computer records, which presumably will require the presence of a council officer with personal knowledge of each individual case to swear on oath as to the particular individual circumstances, or to extend the use of the Act to allow the legal use of computer records and face a possible challenge on any of the seven million liability orders already granted in England and Wales, particularly those that led on to nearly 200 imprisonments; and calls for all poll tax cases to be halted until this is sorted out.]
That judgment backs up what I told the Leader of the House last week and what I have been telling the House for
500
more than a year—that flawed procedures are being used in magistrates courts to railroad more than 7 million people through the courts and to put almost 200 people in prison. Why will the Leader of the House not announce not merely that urgent consideration is being given to the matter but that all poll tax cases will be halted forthwith until the situation is resolved?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that the Government are considering the matter urgently. Nothing that has happened in some recent cases provides any reason for people who are liable to pay the community charge failing to do so.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on education, and especially on the local authorities' responsibilities and their relationship with Government in terms of school organisation, so that I may highlight the need for an early decision on proposals to reorganise schools in Ealing, where parents, teachers and children will be greatly affected by those decisions?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend Government time for that matter. However, he is aware that he can seek to find time to raise it in the House.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 291, which has been signed by 124 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House?
[That this House regrets the Government's failure to deal with the imminent threat of wholesale breaches of the law on Sunday trading; expresses concern that Ministers appear to be running away from their responsibility to uphold the law as soon as one or more large commercial organisations express their intention to ignore the law; greatly regrets the way that this situation puts pressure on responsible and law-abiding retailers to open on Sundays simply to protect their market share; further regrets the damage that is likely to be done to small shops and family businesses as a consequence; considers that sensible progress to modernising the law should be made on the basis of the REST proposals put forward by Keep Sunday Special; and calls on the Government actively to pursue the regulation of Sunday trading in a way which deals fairly with employees, their families and with community and commercial interests.]
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of yesterday's decision by the House, by 224 votes to 4, to do something about the shambles about the operation of the Shops Act 1950. Surely some time should be given next week so that we can debate this issue, especially when, today, in answer to Question 4, the Minister of State, Home Office told the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that it would be a couple of months before we had the report from the law courts in Europe. That does not answer the burning problem of law-breaking on a Sunday, especially when the House has not been afforded the opportunity even to debate the matter in full so that a consensus of hon. Members can be taken. The Leader of the House should make time next week for this urgent matter to be discussed.
Mr. MacGregor: But the Government have already made clear their position on this matter. We had a full statement on the case that is now in the House of Lords and on the general discussion in relation to the reform of Sunday trading. The hon. Gentleman has been here sufficiently long to know that yesterday's decision by the

501
House was simply to give leave to bring in a Bill. The House did not take a decision on the Bill or express a view on it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are many views in the House about exactly what any reform of Sunday trading should involve. It is unlikely that the House will be able to consider a Bill on this matter in the remainder of this Session, given the amount of business that we have to do.
Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary King.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot take a point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—until after the statement. I must apply the same rules to those on the Front Benches as to those on the Back Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Tracey?"] This is taking up time, but if hon. Members are alleging that I took a point of order from the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), I did so because the Chair has to hear the point of order if it is alleged that something unparliamentary happened during the course of Question Time. Nothing had happened.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking it. The shadow Leader of the House cannot ask me to hear a point of order from the Front Bench when I am not prepared to hear them from those on the Back Benches.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry but I am not taking it until after the statement.
Dr. Cunningham: It arose out of business questions.
Mr. Speaker: It may have done.

Type 23 Frigates
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a further order for type 23 frigates.
The type 23 frigate will form the backbone of the Royal Navy anti-submarine surface force in the future and is, in addition, a highly capable all-round warship. Four are already in service and six more are under construction. In June we invited tenders for up to three more frigates. The benefit of our competitive tendering policy was clearly shown in the extremely keen prices offered, which are significantly lower in real terms than previous ships. The benefits of privatisation of the yards and the greatly improved productivity now ensure better value for money for our own defence expenditure and help the yards themselves to compete once again overseas, as the opportunities with Malaysia and Oman have shown.
Before I turn to the outcome of the competition, I remind the House that the contract with the shipbuilder is for less than half the total estimated cost of the frigates. The larger part is made up by the host of specialised equipments that such a frigate contains. For some of those, contracts have yet to be awarded. But some are already known; for instance, the ships' 4.5 in gun will be ordered from VSEL—Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited—in Barrow, the machinery control equipment from Vosper Thornycroft in Porchester, the vertical launch Sea Wolf missiles from British Aerospace in Bristol. The two Spey gas turbine engines for each ship will be ordered from Rolls-Royce at Coventry, main gearing from GEC, Rugby and diesel generators from Paxman Diesels at Colchester. The shipbuilder will itself also have many sub-contractors. Hundreds of firms across the United Kingdom, large and small, will benefit from this order over the next few years, and its value will approach about £400 million.
On the results of the competition, I can tell the House that the tenders produced a winner by a very clear margin. We have accordingly decided to place a fixed-price contract for three type 23 frigates with Yarrow Shipbuilders on the Clyde. The construction of the first ship will start in the second half of this year. These ships will join the Duke class and will be named HMS Somerset, HMS Grafton and HMS Sutherland.
This is very good news for Glasgow, for Scotland as a whole, and for all the companies involved throughout the country. I recognise that it is, equally, a disappointment for the other yards which had tendered for the work, and for the people in those areas. However, this type 23 order is but one part of a substantial on-going programme of vessels for the Royal Navy. This will include a new anti-air warfare frigate, a second batch of Trafalgar class submarines and other significant vessels to ensure that we maintain a modern and effective navy in the future.
This order brings to 13 the number of type 23 frigates ordered since 1984, and the number of vessels ordered for the Royal Navy since 1979 to 71. It is yet more evidence that the Government are committed to ensuring the capability of the Royal Navy's fleet and to the wider aim of ensuring that our forces of the future have the modern equipment that they need.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his welcome statement, made with great promptness, given the time scale. I offer my congratulations to the workers and management of Yarrow, who have picked themselves up after the bitter disappointment of losing the last order, despite having built the first of class and many of the subsequent ships.
Can the Secretary of State give the fabrication start date, an important issue for the progress of work for the yard and for the timetabling of entry into service? What does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the size of the fleet? It has been postulated at "around 40". Perhaps he is now in a position to be more precise. When will the tendering process be opened for the craft to which he referred in his statement? That must be of great concern to the yards which were not successful in the tendering process, whose problems will become similar to those that confronted Yarrow until this afternoon. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the next tranche of type 23 orders, to which he did not refer in his statement, to be in the pipeline and when can we expect the next round of tendering to start for those?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He recognises this for what it is—solid confirmation of the Government's determination to invest in the defence of our country. I will not go further than to say "around 40", but we certainly intend to implement the programme that we set out in "Options for Change". I can confirm that other ships are under way. We have a project definition of the landing platform dock. At present, other matters are proceeding, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to him for seeking clarification—that in respect of a further order for type 23s, I expect that to be at a broadly similar interval comparing this with the previous order that was placed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again what I said before business questions, namely, that there is heavy pressure on the next two debates. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.30, after which we shall have to move on to the debate.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the machinery control order is to be placed with that fine company, Vosper Thornycroft, will be very good news in south Hampshire? Does he further agree that the fact that 71 vessels have been ordered by the Ministry of Defence since 1979 confirms what my hon. Friends and I have always believed—that under the present Government the Royal Navy will continue to play an important role and provide a fine career in the foreseeable future?
Mr. King: I certainly confirm my hon. Friend's comments about the quality of the work at Vosper Thornycroft, which is the basis of its competitiveness and why it has achieved the order placed directly by my Department. It confirms our commitment to a substantial number of ships in the future. Hon. Members could easily have been misled by referring to a previous Hansard which shows that a substantial number of ships are on order but fails to reflect the Government's commitment to naval shipbuilding. An unfortunate misprint in Hansard says that the value of the ships on order is £4.6 million whereas the correct answer should have been £4.6 billion.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would be churlish to do anything other than welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's announcement, and I willingly do so. He will appreciate that there will be not only a sense of relief at Yarrow, but a great sense of pride that the company has been entrusted with that order. The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement the disappointment that others might feel. When will he be in a position to make a firm announcement about the placing of an order for the fourth Trident submarine?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. My announcement is a tribute to the shipyard's competitiveness and productivity. I remember walking round that shipyard some 30 years ago. A transformation has taken place in the productivity of British shipbuilding because of privatisation, because there was no bottomless pit to which shipyards could turn, and because of the sheer reality that none of those yards would exist unless there had been a quantum change in working practices. The competitive procurement policy of the Ministry of Defence has been good news not only for the Ministry and the taxpayer but for the yards. A discussion is currently taking place on the contract for the fourth Trident boat. We intend to proceed and shall resolve the contract at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Neville Trotter: It is clearly in the interests of the Royal Navy and of the taxpayer that there should be competitive tendering to obtain the lowest price. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that that order was decided solely on price? Would the cost have been significantly higher if the order had been divided? Finally, is it still the Government's intention to proceed with ordering a large helicopter carrier, known as an aviation support ship? Swan Hunter's experience of shipbuilding for the navy makes it well placed to win a contract.
Mr. King: I can confirm my hon. Friend's first point. Nobody has fought harder than he for the interests of the shipyards of the Tyne and for Swan Hunter. I know that today's announcement will be a disappointment for them, and that those on the Tyne recognise that the response to all that they asked for previously was fair play. Yarrow was a clear winner in the competition. I also confirm that a clear benefit is that of batch ordering. We did not merely see three ships come sailing by: ordering in threes has shown significant benefits and economies. Furthermore, we intend to invite tenders for the building of an aviation support ship shortly. That is of great interest to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members, and Swan Hunter will clearly be one of the real contenders for that.
Mr. George Galloway: As Yarrow is the flagship in my constituency and the biggest private employer in the whole of Glasgow, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept my sense of relief and—yes—gratitude that the Ministry has made that decision today. I am also grateful for the Secretary of State's confirmation that the order was won on merit and is a testament to the ability and dedication of the management and work force at Yarrow Shipbuilders. When the Secretary of State worked in Glasgow in a previous life, he grew to know the value of the stamp, "Clyde-built". Today's order confirms that.

505
When is the work likely to start? Notwithstanding the good news, many hundreds of the workers at Yarrow Shipbuilders have already gone down the road and it would be helpful if we could proceed quickly.
I have just one quibble: could we not consider naming the ships HMS Stewart, Lang and Forsyth in memory of three Ministers who, notwithstanding that good news, are likely not to be in office much longer?
Mr. King: I am appalled at the flippant way in which the hon. Member addresses the serious matter of the continuing equipment of the Royal Navy. I can confirm, however, that the company would not have won this order except as a private sector yard which will have to incur the costs if it makes losses. Such losses will be borne, not by the Government, but by the company. I do not think that it is in any way insulting to say that the epithet, "Clyde-built", which was a badge of quality in the last century, was getting somewhat tarnished during the post-war years. The efforts of the management and the work force now in the shipyards on the Clyde and in Yarrow's have done a great deal to restore that badge of quality, which was in danger of slipping away.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is wonderful news for Glasgow and for Scotland and a great tribute to the work force and management, some of whom were in the House this week to meet an all-party group? As we have had some rather rough news in the past few weeks, it is a real shot in the arm and the country will be grateful for the announcement.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to recognise the importance of the announcement. He is right also to say that the value is not just for Yarrow. Hundreds of subcontractors, in Scotland as in other parts of the country, will benefit from this announcement. My hon. Friend will also know the value of the more competitive and effective approach of the yard. It is currently in the final stages of negotiations for a very important order from Malaysia which, had it not been the competitive and effective yard that it now is, it would have had no chance of getting.
Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State said that he was mindful of the atmosphere in yards which had competed and failed. Will he share with the House his thoughts about the atmosphere that he thinks will now prevail in Cammell Laird, which finds itself unable to compete for naval orders? Is he aware that, under British Shipbuilders, Laird's was classified as a naval yard, and other yards not so classified were given intervention funding? Laird's now has to go into battle without any chance of getting either naval orders or intervention funds. Does the Secretary of State believe that the action of the board of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in disqualifying us from competing for this work is fair to Cammell Laird? What does he think that that does for the Government's competition policy?
Mr. King: I understand very well the point that the hon. Member raises, having worn another hat previously when a major shipyard was one of my biggest concerns. The question whether one had a naval involvement or access to the intervention fund was very critical indeed. That yard, privatised and sold to a new owner and with access to the intervention fund, now has a substantial number of new
506
orders. I would rather not answer across the Floor of the House the serious point that the hon. Member has raised, but I will certainly look into it and come back to him.
Mr. Cecil Franks: While the Secretary of State's announcement is good news for Yarrow and the Clyde, it is none the less a disappointment for the other three shipyards that submitted tenders, not least VSEL in Barrow, although the order for the 4.5 inch gun would be welcome.
The Secretary of State referred to Trident. To pursue the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the Secretary of State will be aware that the long lead orders for the four Trident submarines were placed some time ago and that construction is quite well advanced. Is he able to elaborate on the answer that he gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East? Can he say how evaluation of the tender is progressing? I understand that progress is good. Can he give some sort of time scale, given good will on both sides, and when the order may be expected to be placed?
Mr. King: I obviously understand the disappointment. There is no question but that VSEL strived genuinely to compete for the order, and put in an effective bid. Unfortunately, from the company's point of view, it was not so competitive as that from Yarrow, but it was certainly a very responsible offer. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the outstandingly successful 4.5 inch gun produced by VSEL is a source of further valuable orders for it.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the construction of the 08, the fourth boat, is currently under way and authorities have been given for the long lead items. The contract is being evaluated. The House will understand that, although we prefer these matters to be resolved by competitive tendering, in this case we are effectively talking about a single supplier, so it is vital to get the contract right. That is why we must ensure that the contract is properly dealt with—otherwise, the Public Accounts Committee, among other bodies, will have a lot to say. We must deal with the matter carefully. I am anxious that the question should be resolved as soon as possible. Although I cannot give a date, we intend to proceed just as soon as we can resolve the question of the contract.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As a Glasgow Member, I add my own expression of delight and relief, and I congratulate the Yarrow management and work force. They certainly deserve their success. Anyone who has spoken to them recently knows of the problems with which they have had to cope. May I add one small point? I was surprised to hear the proposed names for the three frigates. As the memory of the clearances lingers in Scotland, I suggest that the Duke of Sutherland is perhaps not the most popular name that could have been chosen.
Mr. King: Given that the announcement is outstandingly good news for the hon. Lady and her constituents, it is unfortunate that she should wish to introduce a divisive note.
Mr. James Hill: I congratulate Yarrow on its good fortune in securing a contract for three ships at once, but I must express some dismay on behalf of Vosper Thornycroft, Southampton, which has built many naval ships in the past.

507
I have a query about the fibreglass minesweepers. I understand that my right hon. Friend has just been to Oman, so perhaps he can give the House some information. Vosper Thornycroft, Southampton, is anxiously waiting for confirmation of the order from the Sheik of Oman for a fleet of minesweepers.
Mr. King: I confirm that I returned from the Gulf late last night. I spent some time in discussion in Oman, not about the minesweepers but about the much more valuable corvette order that the Omanis are seeking to place, and I was given very satisfactory assurances by His Majesty the Sultan about those orders. Details remain to be resolved and I hope that it will be possible to resolve them quickly.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: When the Secretary of State listed the areas that would benefit from today's announcement, he made no mention of Tyneside. He has now ordered 13 type 23 frigates, four of which either were or are under construction at Swan Hunter on Tyneside. I understand that type 23 frigates are grouped in fours around the fleet auxiliaries. AOR1 is the first auxiliary oil replenishment vessel and AOR2 is currently being constructed on Tyneside. As the Secretary of State has now ordered 13 type 23 frigates and has only two AOR vessels, does he not need to order another AOR vessel? When will he make an announcement about AOR3?
Mr. King: I do not have any comment to make on that ship at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) about the aviation support ship, for which Swan's is obviously one of the real contenders. That could be an important ship for Swan's. I took the trouble to look at what the hon. Gentleman said last time, when Swan's was successful. He said magnanimously, "All that we ever ask for is fair play." I can assure him that fair play is what he has got in this case. I am sorry that he is disappointed that the order did not go to Swan's, but I can assure him that there was fair play and it has gone to Yarrow.
Mr. John Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the order and the announcement will be widely welcomed, particularly by the work force and managment of GEC, Rugby? It is good news for jobs and it is good news for the town. Can my right hon. Friend say what is the global worth of the contract, and does he agree that it represents a vote of confidence in British engineering?
Mr. King: I can confirm that. This statement differs from previous statements in that it spells out the main contractors. There is a tendency for people to approach this matter as though it were one entirely for the shipyard concerned. In fact, the larger part of the value of the contract is not in the hull itself but in the components, a significant proportion of which will be provided by GEC in Rugby. Obviously, for commercial reasons, I cannot disclose individual contract values. However, I can confirm that the overall value of the ships with equipment that I have announced today approaches £400 million.
Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his Department takes an adequate
508
interest in the subcontracts? Is he aware that the chain and cable industry in this country is widely accepted as being the best in the world in terms of both technology and workmanship? Will he ensure that it is not unfairly excluded as a result of the foreign dumping of inferior chain?
Mr. King: I am interested to hear that, and I will certainly look into it.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that HMS Norfolk—the first of the Duke class—has been accepted into the fleet and has been completing work-up at Portland. Past colleagues of mine who are still serving in the Royal Navy tell me that she is an outstanding success and a tribute to British shipbuilding. Indeed, she is a foretaste of what we shall be getting in these other ships. Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement about vertically launched Sea Wolf will be most welcome to British Aerospace in Bristol? I know that in this regard my feeling will be echoed by my hon. Friends with responsibility for Bristol constituencies. It is regrettable that, yet again, the Labour Member for Bristol has not bothered to turn up.
Mr. King: I did notice the absence. I know that my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, understands the importance to Bristol and to British Aerospace of this decision and this order. Bearing in mind his experience and his information, I am pleased to hear his tribute to the quality of HMS Norfolk—as it happens, the first of class, built at Yarrow. The news that my hon. Friend has given the House is encouraging.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State accept that this news is very welcome indeed? It is a tribute not only to the management at Yarrow but to the workers, who have spent a long time removing ill-considered demarcation practices—and it is as a shipbuilder that I say that. Will the Secretary of State concede that one of the things that this will enable Yarrow to do is to keep its essential design capability, illustrated by the fact that it produced the first of class? Will he continue to allow it flexibility in respect of other markets?
Mr. King: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have to make the point that it will not be possible to keep any design capability, any warship-building capability or any manufacturing capability for the sort of defence components that we need unless the Government are prepared to fund the defence programme at a sensible level. While I am far too gentle and decent a person to criticise any Opposition Member who has joined in the expressions of appreciation of this action, I have to say, in the kindest possible way, that if the defence policies to which the Opposition subscribe—I include all the Opposition parties—were implemented, we should not be ordering a rowing boat, let alone three frigates.
Mr. David Martin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's statement because it demonstrates the Government's commitment to a better equipped fleet for the future, even though the fleet manpower is contracting, and because jobs will be provided in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area. Many people wish to write down the opportunities which exist, but under the present Government there is a future for many of the defence-related industries in my area.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, I know, appreciates the situation very well. We have announced changes, including some reductions in numbers. It is true that the new type 23s, because of their greater capability and efficiency, will operate with smaller crews. They show very clearly that the Government are ensuring that, while we may reduce the personnel numbers in our armed forces, we are increasing the relative proportion of funds spent on their equipment to ensure that in the future they have the equipment that they need to perform the tasks that we set them.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I join the whole House in paying tribute to the work force and management at Yarrow on winning this vital order against such stiff competition. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the competition was won on price? And can he reveal whether the tendering process says anything about the level of profits being made by VSEL in the manufacturing and construction of Trident submarines?
Mr. King: No, I cannot comment on that, but it is relevant to the contract negotiations for Trident 08—we must protect the public Exchequer precisely from the problem of a monopoly single buyer.
I can certainly confirm that the contract was placed on merit; it was won by a clear margin in a competitive tender.
Mr. Lewis Stevens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is good news for the Ansty Rolls-Royce plant in my constituency which manufactures Spey engines? This is welcome news for the employees and management of that company. Will he also accept that his demonstration of confidence in the plant's high quality power unit is most important for the company when it seeks orders abroad?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly true that the Spey engines have proved an outstanding success. The Royal Navy has great confidence in them and they were chosen for their quality, flexibility and efficiency. They have stood the Royal Navy in good stead. It is because of our defence programme's ability to maintain an effective ordering programme that we can also attract interest among overseas countries. What we invest in is always of great interest to such countries. They know that if an item has the Royal Navy's endorsement it is bound to be of good quality.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will certainly look with compassion in days to come on the three hon. Members whom I have not been able to call on the statement, but we have a busy day ahead of us.

Points of Order
4.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the House heard the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) make wholly untrue allegations about Labour's policies with respect to the savings and income from savings of pensioners. We have come to expect the premeditated dishonesty of Conservative Central Office to be reprinted in the Daily Mail, but we do
510
not intend to allow it to go unchallenged in the columns of Hansard. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be expected to monitor these statements. I am not a member of the Conservative party, so I do not receive this literature.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Shortly before yesterday's debate on the economy you told the House that in your opinion the general election campaign started when we came back from the Christmas recess. Of course, in these difficult circumstances you seek to keep order, but I ask you to reflect on one problem and to see what you can do about it. I refer to what I regard as the Labour party's organised disruption of yesterday's debate.
The example that I wish to mention is drawn not only from the delayed start of the debate but from the organised barracking of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury orchestrated from the Back Benches by a Labour Whip. So now we know that a member of the Labour party Whips Office was organising the disruption.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, and others, do not receive letters about this from the general public, but I do. When I have to answer them I have some difficulty defending Members of the House, for whom I have a high regard and affection, if they behave badly, but such bad behaviour does not always come from the same side of the House.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: This all takes up a lot of time; we are under great pressure today.
Mr. Ewing: I am delighted to learn that you are a floating voter, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Labour party, I invite you to join the vast majority of people in this country at the next election and to vote Labour.
Mr. Derek Conway: On a slightly more serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were right to point out that from now until polling day, whenever it may be, will be somewhat tortuous not just for the watching public but for Members who sit in this Chamber. You will no doubt be concerned for the reputation of this House. As we may have to wait even until the summer, tempers may get a little tetchy, as last night's closing session proved. Would it be worth your while to consider sending for the chairman not only of the 1922 committee but also of the parliamentary Labour party so that the leaders of the respective parties in Parliament can discuss with you the conduct last night? The Chief Secretary was undoubtedly unable to explain his case fully because of the obviously organised baiting. That does not augur well for the reputation of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is necessary for me to send for the chairmen of Back-Bench committees. The behaviour of the House is in the hands of hon. Members themselves. They surely do not need to be told by the chairmen of the respective parliamentary committees what they should and should not do. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on what he has said.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a suggestion.
Mr. Speaker: Yes?
Mr. Winnick: You said that you receive letters of complaint from the general public. May I help you by suggesting that if you could persuade the Prime Minister to fix the election date now there would be no need for this pre-election period—if the Prime Minister would stop shilly-shallying because he is afraid of going to the country.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a very brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for being absent from the Chamber for the statement. I do not know why my hon. Friend is not here today, but I know that she is a very hard-working, committed hon. Member. For whatever reason, she is not here; I am sure that she is doing something important.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that in this period of electioneering excitement we can keep off the personalities and concentrate on the policies.
In relation to what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said about the letters that I receive, very few of them to date, particularly since we have been televised, have been about bad behaviour in the House—rather the reverse—and I wish it to remain that way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Because the hon. Member was not called earlier, I will allow the point of order.
Dr. Godman: With unfailing respect, may I ask why I was not called on the Yarrow statement? I have not spoken in this place for a considerable period of time.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I should explain to the hon. Member why he was not called. I have to have a balance of Glasgow Members and other hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Clyde Members."]—well, Clydeside Members, then, against some other hon. Member who did not hear such good news as the hon. Member has had. I thought that because he had had such good news he might just like to keep it to himself today.

BILL PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS)
  Mr. Secretary Newton, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Miss Ann Widdecombe, presented a Bill to make provision for requiring, in certain cases where interest on a loan secured on land is payable by a person who is entitled, or whose partner, former partner or qualifying associate is entitled, to income support, the applicable amount in respect of which includes a sum in respect of that interest, that a part of the benefits to which any of those persons is entitled under the enactments relating to social security shall be paid directly to the lender and applied towards the discharge of the liability in respect of the interest; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Poverty
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, a very large number of hon. Members are seeking to participate in the debate. It would be possible for me to call them all if they were to limit their speeches to 10 minutes. I have no authority to do that in a half-day debate, but perhaps hon. Members will bear it in mind. If I may say to those on the Front Benches too, half-hour speeches would help the whole House.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting that the ten million people today living on or below the income support level of less than £40 a week for an adult represent the greatest numbers in poverty in Britain since the war, and that the Government has as a deliberate policy over twelve years further impoverished the poorest one third of the nation to make the rich richer, calls on the Government to reverse its policies of increasing poverty and unemployment and to give priority to the growing millions excluded from the rights and opportunities of real citizenship by increasing pensions by £5 per week for a single pensioner and by £8 a week for a married couple, by re-instituting the pension link with earnings which the Government broke twelve years ago, and by restoring to families the losses in child benefit from three years of government freeze.
  There could be no clearer indicator of the indifference
  and contempt in which the Government hold those on the lowest incomes than the Government's exclusive concern with our tax proposals, without even a glimmer of a mention of those who will benefit from them. There could be no more revealing insight into the Government's priorities than their obsessive concentration on the 8.7 per cent. richest taxpayers whom the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated would lose under our proposals while at the same time completely ignoring the 46 per cent. of the population who, the same institute calculated, would gain under our proposals.
  We should not, however, be surprised. This is the Government who have stopped pensioners getting an annual increase in line with Community living standards, a deliberate act of policy in 1980, which cumulatively so far—according to a parliamentary answer to me on 25 November last—has removed from pensioners £31.8 billion of improved pensions which they would otherwise have had.
  The Government have cut unemployment benefit 11 times since 1979, making a cumulative "saving"—if I may use that word—at the expense of the unemployed, of £5 billion to £6 billion over the past decade. They have repeatedly cut benefits for the disabled by abolishing industrial injury benefit, by abolishing disablement benefit for seven out of eight disabled people and by abolishing the reduced earnings allowance for disabled people who cannot earn a full wage. They have frozen child benefit for three years so that mothers and families are nearly £1 billion worse off than they would otherwise have been.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: About 18 months ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he

  513
  had irrefutable evidence that the Government intended to abolish child benefit. After three increases, where is his evidence? Has he lost it, or did he make it up?
  Mr. Meacher: I did not say that I had irrefutable evidence. I certainly regarded the continuance of child benefit as very uncertain, and I still regard it as uncertain. If by some mischance the Government are returned for a fourth term, I should be surprised if child benefit survives to the end of their term.
  With a record like that, no wonder Ministers want to keep the spotlight on the tax and national insurance costs of our proposals and away from the half of the nation who will gain. For that half of the nation, the Government have been the meanest, the most divisive and the most vindictive Government in modern times. It is all too clear why there has been such an unremitting broadside from Ministers against our tax and national insurance proposals. It is partly because they are desperate to divert attention from the recession—which they created, from which they cannot escape and which will lose them the election—and partly because they are desperate to conceal the enormity of what they have done in wilfully impoverishing the poorer half of the nation.
  By contrast, I make it clear that Labour believes it is right and just and should be the first priority for pensioners to get an increase of £5 a week for a single pensioner and £8 a week for a married couple, given the mean and miserable way in which they have been treated over the past decade. We shall make no corresponding deductions from income support, housing benefit or poll tax benefit, which means that the poorest pensioners will gain the full £5 and £8 a week.
  It is also right and just that mothers and children should be compensated for three years of Tory freeze by getting an increase in child benefit of more than £2 a week for second and subsequent children. We have been honest in making it clear that the extra cost of that will be confined to the richest 10 per cent. of taxpayers. It is fair that those on £70,000 a year should contribute. According to a parliamentary answer on 6 March last year, those people have gained an extra £700 a week in real terms from tax cuts in successive Budgets since 1979.
  It is also fair that those on £60,000 a year who have gained an extra £192, those on £50,000 a year—a group which includes several Ministers—who have gained an extra £131 a week and those on £40,000 who have gained an extra £77 a week should also contribute. A small contribution should also be made by those on £30,000 a year who have gained an extra £45 a week. I make it clear that no contribution will be sought from anyone earning less than £21,000 a year, or £405 a week. We intend to take back a small fraction of the large windfall tax gains received by the 10 per cent. richest taxpayers over the past decade so that we may restore to nearly half the population a modest part of the cuts imposed by the Government on all the poorest groups in the country. We think that that is fair and we believe that the country will think it fair.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): How can the hon. Gentleman explain the guarantee that he gave in the last few sentences, bearing in mind that national insurance contributions are levied weekly, not annually, and would be levied on anyone
  514
  whose income, because of bonuses, overtime, commission and so on in any one week, went above the rate representing the annual level?
  Mr. Meacher: That issue has been raised during the past couple of weeks. It ill-behoves the Government to raise the issue of a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, people who on one or two weeks of the year suddenly get a substantial increase in pay, given that the Government have doubled VAT even though they said they would never do that.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's answer is that what he has said is not a guarantee.
  Mr. Meacher: It is a guarantee that all those whose normal pay is at that level will not have to pay more. To speak about tiny discrepancies is an insult to the people when the Government have increased taxation from 34 to 37 per cent. for the average person.
  I have spelt out our position and shall now look briefly at that of the Government. By breaking the pension link with earnings, the Secretary of State for Social Security and his predecessors have made the single pensioner about £14 a week worse off and the married couple £23 a week worse off than they would have been under the policies that existed in 1979. Having done that to the pensioners, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to continue to reduce even further their share of average living standards year by year.
  It is not that the Secretary of State and the Government do not have a choice. There is persistent talk of 1p off income tax in the Budget, or perhaps an increase in personal allowances by double the rate of inflation. Clearly, there is leeway of about £2 billion in the Budget. That is enough to increase the pension for a single person by about £3.50 a week and for a married couple by about £5.50 a week, together with all the linked benefits. Why is not the right hon. Gentleman demanding that his colleagues should help the pensioners for once? Why is he such a pushover when it comes to defending the 17 million people who depend on benefits? The Secretary of State is silent. We have grown used to his silences, which sometimes last for months on end. They speak volumes. Even after slapping pensioners round the face year after year throughout the past decade, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, even at this time, prefer tax cuts for their friends in the upper income groups rather than the tiniest measure of justice for pensioners.
  Mr. Simon Burns rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a relevant comment.
  Mr. Burns: Between the hon. Gentleman's flights of hyperbole, which make him sound more and more like a cold war warrior when the cold war has ended, will he remind the House that between 1979 and 1988 pensioners' incomes rose by 33 per cent. in real terms above inflation?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall be glad to put it on record, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take note of it, that the 2 million poorest pensioners, who do not have any other income, have had an increase in pension in real terms since 1979 of between 0 per cent. and 2 per cent. Under the last Labour Government, who were in office for five years, the increase was 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman referred to a 33 per cent. increase. There is one major reason for that

  515
  —the state-earnings related pension scheme which Labour introduced. In 1979 it was worth about 50p a week. For the average pensioner retiring this year on average earnings it is worth £40.80 per week. Pensioners have done better because of Labour's action on pensions, which the Secretary of State's predecessor tried to abolish.
  What is the Prime Minister's position? He likes to proclaim the classless society—I think that he describes it as a nation at ease with itself—yet he has produced the most class-divided society since the war, a nation more riven by depression, anxiety and fear than at any time for a decade. It gives me no pride to say that for the first time since the war more than 10 million people, or more than one in six of the population, are living at or below the income support level. That is more even than when unemployment was last at its peak in 1986.
  While the Prime Minister in his so-called classless society always travels first class, the 10 million at the bottom are deprived even—if I may coin a phrase—of the "cheap and cheerful" class. Not only are there more of them than before, but the poverty level standard on which they are forced to live is at a record low. It is less than £40 a week for an adult over 25. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who gets more than £1,000 a week, should try living on £40 for a week. If Ministers had to experience that in practice, it would not stay at that level for long.
  Faced with those figures by David Frost last Sunday, what was the Prime Minister's response? It was to wriggle and to fiddle. He said:
  "Now we have raised those income support levels far above the amount that one would need to raise them simply to keep pace with inflation, so in essence we have brought into the statistics people who otherwise would have been beyond those statistics. So there is an artificiality in the figures."
  I have news for the Prime Minister. The only artificiality in the official figures is that they are lower than the reality because every year for the last eight years the Government have cut income support and supplementary benefit in relation to average earnings.
  Since 1979, the Government have cut the relative value of the benefits by a quarter. That really matters when a person receives less than £40 a week. Because those on income support have now been deprived of single payments and have to pay 100 per cent. water rates and 20 per cent. poll tax, income support has not even kept up with inflation. If the Prime Minister would put only half the ingenuity that he devotes to misrepresenting the truth into dealing with the problem, we might make progress in reducing the poverty which he has played such a big part in creating.
  The Prime Minister has a record as long as one's arm. He tells us about his humble origins about as often as the Chancellor tells us that the recession is ending. But that did not stop him—when he had the power as a Minister at the Department of Social Security—cutting in half the relief on mortgage interest payments for the first 16 weeks for newly unemployed, or virtually abolishing disability benefit, sharply cutting the number of free school meals, or punitively extending the unemployment benefit disqualification rules from 16 to 26 weeks and setting up the hated social fund; I might add to that his refusal now of 75 per cent. of the applications made under it.
  This is the same man who in 1988, together with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, chopped £1 billion
  516
  off the benefits for people on £40 a week, at the same time as the Chancellor handed £2 billion in tax cuts to higher rate taxpayers. Surely there cannot be a clearer demonstration of Tory contempt for those struggling on the lowest incomes.
  Perhaps, if the Prime Minister were here, he would say that as a junior Minister he was acting under orders. I understand that point. In that case, why has he done nothing, since becoming Prime Minister, to reverse the harsh legislation for which he was responsible? Why has he not even revoked the iniquitous 16-week mortgage interest disqualification rule which he personally introduced in the House in December 1986 and which, of course, is the root cause of thousands of repossessions?
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Meacher: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who before the debate started was making a bogus point of order about disrupting proceedings, speaks to some of those whose houses have been repossessed about the effect that that has had on them.
  Why has the Prime Minister left in place a Chancellor who has shown his personal contempt for the poor by saying that unemployment is a price well worth paying? Why has he done nothing to halt the human tide of despair among the 1 million people forced on to income support—not when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, but since he became Prime Minister? The Prime Minister inherited a wilderness and he has simply presided over its getting worse. He spends more time running away from elections than facing up to fundamental issues.
  Our social security system is probably the worst in the EC, with the possible exception of those in Greece, Spain and Portugal. It is getting steadily worse by the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is a fact. If hon. Members looked at the figures of comparative benefit, they would understand the point which I am making.
  British pensions, British child benefit and British disability benefits are all lower, and in many cases substantially lower, than those of all our main competitors. We have a Secretary of State for Social Security who is distinguished only by his invisibility, and who has done nothing to arrest the steady disintegration of the benefits system, the growing demoralisation of his staff in social security offices and the major dissatisfaction and anger of so many clients.
  At least I was assured that the right hon. Gentleman still existed when, a week ago, he issued a press release attacking the Labour party over its national insurance plans. The only problem was that he contradicted the figures which he had given only a month ago by exaggerating them by no less than 50 per cent. Perhaps he should return to his hibernation.
  We have a Government where the last resort of the scoundrel is to lie.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I am not giving way again. Other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  We have a Government who are making wild and unthruthful allegations against us about tax as they have no other resort left. Let us consider briefly their record on

  517
  tax. Under the Tories, taxation has gone up from 34 per cent. to 37 per cent. Theirs is not a tax-cutting party but a tax-raising party. The Government say that they will cut income tax and increase public expenditure. That means that they will have to put up VAT which, as the latest edition of "Social Trends" out yesterday shows, hits poorer families much harder than richer families. Of course, the Tories say that they have no plans to increase VAT. They said that in 1978 and in 1987. On both occasions, they promptly increased it directly after the elections. We cannot trust the Tories on VAT. It was the Tories who introduced VAT; it was the Tories who doubled it. Labour cut it from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent.in 1974.
  The Labour party believes in fair taxation, justice and the right of participation for all our citizens, including the poorest. Because the Tories have shown by their record that they manifestly believe in neither, the issue which we are debating today will play a major part in removing them soon from power.
  4.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'warmly endorses the Government's policies for focusing considerable extra help on the most vulnerable in society; welcomes the further real increases in benefits shortly to take place for many older less well off pensioners and hundreds of thousands of disabled people; notes the Social Security Select Committee's conclusion that real disposable incomes grew by 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988 with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale; believes that policies which provide more choice and greater opportunities are the best way of helping people to create a better life for themselves and their families; and recognises that, if implemented, Her Majesty's Opposition's confused tax and spending plans would impoverish the whole nation, increase unemployment and destroy opportunities.'.
  In the light of one or two observations that the hon.
  Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I shall begin with an observation that I had not intended to make: that I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not make the remark about orders that the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested. What I do know is that, when challenged on his record when he was a Social Security Minister, the hon. Gentleman was heard to mutter that of course he was a junior Minister and had to do what he was told.
  Mr. Meacher: Since the right hon. Gentleman has made that allegation, I totally and absolutely refute it and ask
  him to provide the evidence, or else to withdraw it.
  Mr. Newton: I heard the hon. Gentleman mutter that when I made the point across the Dispatch Box in the last debate that we had on this subject. If the hon. Gentleman assures me that my recollection or my hearing was wrong, then of course I accept that unequivocally. I simply say that he had no business to make that suggestion about the Prime Minister. I remind him that he was a Minister in the old Department of Health and Social Security when the Christmas bonus was not paid for two years running—so much for his concern for the pensioners—and when Labour failed to carry out its own obligation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is too much body language.
  Mr. Newton: —in respect of the uprating of benefits. The hon. Gentleman's approach to these matters can best be illustrated by looking at a number of his recent texts. When I saw the figure of 10 million people living in poverty in the motion that he tabled, I found that I could not reconcile it with a number of other figures that the hon. Gentleman had used. I did some research and found that in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change: A new Agenda for Britain" of June 1989 we were told that the numbers living in poverty had grown from 11 million to over 15 million. Later, in September 1991, we were told that over 11 people were living in poverty. When the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister in November 1991 the figure had come down to just over 9.5 million. In a press release that he issued on 17 December, less than a month later, the figure rose again to nearly 15 million. Today it has come down to 10 million.
  It is tempting for me to draw from that wild variation the conclusion that, on Labour's own figures, the Government have reduced poverty by a third in a month. I shall refrain from doing so, however, and will simply wonder—no doubt in common with several of his right hon. and hon. Friends—just what it is that the hon. Gentleman thinks he is doing.
  Mr. Meacher: If one takes account of the extra passported benefits associated with income support, one comes to a substantially higher figure than if one simply counts the heads of household claiming income support. If one takes into account only heads of household, which is what I did, the number stands at over 8.3 million. If one then takes into account what the National Audit Office said in its House of Commons paper 451—that 1.8 million who are living below the threshold are not claiming income support—one finds that the figure comes to just over 10 million. That is a shocking figure. It is the highest figure that we have ever had.
  Mr. Newton: It is lower than the figure that the document I first quoted gave for 1979, which was 11 million. The hon. Gentleman appears to use whatever figures he thinks will have most impact in whatever press release he decides to issue in a particular week. Only one thing is absolutely clear: that, whatever else these figures do, they do not provide a sensible measure of poverty. They are constructed, apparently, in two different ways, both of which lead the hon. Gentleman, in the conclusions that he then seeks to draw, into manifest and palpable absurdity.
  The first of these methods, upon which the hon. Gentleman touched earlier, is to take as the number in poverty the number of people at or below the income support rate and, as he said, sometimes to add in those who are a little above it. I leave aside the fact that the last Labour Government—I believe at the time when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister—declined to accept that sort of definition of a poverty line, just as much as the present Government have declined to accept it. I would simply make the point that, according to this "Alice in Wonderland" approach to measuring poverty, every real increase in the income support rates, which by definition makes people better off, produces in the hon. Gentleman's world an increase in the amount of poverty.
  In April, when the 7 per cent. rise in income support generally and the further real increase in the higher pensioners' premium will give new income support

  519
  entitlement to about 500,000 people, most of them pensioners, making them better off, the hon. Gentleman will presumably be running round the country saying that poverty has increased from 10 million to 10.5 million. Incidentally, the converse is true—that a reduction in income support rates, which makes all those involved worse off, would show up in his kind of figuring as a reduction in poverty. It is utterly and totally ridiculous.
  If anything, it gets worse. The second of the hon. Gentleman's methods for measuring what he calls poverty—I suspect that this is the real reason for some of the confused figures to which I referred a few moments ago—is to make reference to average incomes and then to say that everybody with less than half the average is to be designated a pauper.
  The result, especially when average incomes are rising, as they have been under this Government, is once again to pretend that people who are getting better off are becoming poor, simply because the increase in their incomes is less than the average. Once again it is absurd, although here, too, there is an obvious converse: that we could make everyone in the country worse off, and, so long as we reduced the average by hitting the better-off hardest, a lot of people further down the scale would allegedly cease to be poor, even as their incomes fell.
  One can see the relevance of that. This is a very attractive proposition for a Labour Government. At one and the same time, they could reduce the standard of living of everybody in the country and claim that they were reducing poverty. No doubt that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There could be no clearer indication from the way in which the hon. Gentleman uses these figures that what he is really talking about—and, frankly, what he is really interested in—is not poverty but equality, an entirely separate matter.
  So much for the hon. Gentleman's figures. I am interested in helping people to become better off. Therefore, I prefer to rest on the simple, clear and accurate conclusion of the Social Security Select Committee in its report on low-income statistics. I am happy to see that its Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is in the Chamber today. The report said:
  "Real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale."
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman also quote the distribution figures for those at the bottom, those on average and those on higher incomes, which may be disguised by just putting across that average figure?
  Mr. Newton: I implied that there have been changes in the distribution of income and the speed with which incomes have changed. That is not the same as the systematic attempt by the hon. Member for Oldham, West to pretend that large numbers of people have been getting better off, which the Select Committee rightly refuted.
  Mr. Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman now say that he endorses the finding of the Select Committee that those who gained the smallest increase under this Government's stewardship were the poorest?
  Mr. Newton: What I shall certainly endorse is that, in recent years, and certainly in the period since I have been
  520
  Secretary of State, we have steadily—uprating by uprating—steered additional resources to poorer pensions and to others whom we had identified, as a result of our research, as among those who were not doing as well as we should have wished.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I ask him that question again? He has quoted the Select Committee report. Does he endorse the whole of that report, which shows that the very poorest have gained the smallest increase under this Government?
  Mr. Newton: I accept that there are variations in the way in which incomes have grown—[HON. MEMBERS:
  "Answer."]—at different levels of the income distribution. I am going no further than that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because, apart from anything else, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, to whom I give credit for taking a genuine and serious interest in such matters—
  Mr. Field: Don't we all?
  Mr. Newton: He will recognise that, apart from anything else, the composition of different deciles and quartiles in those distribution figures is not necessarily the same at the end of the period as it was at the beginning. A whole range of extremely complicated factors are involved. If the hon. Gentleman will accept that, I shall move on.
  Mr. Field: I accept that fully, but some of those in the lowest decile remained in the lowest decile throughout the Government's entire period in office. Will the right hon. Gentleman now come to the Dispatch Box to say that, under the stewardship of this Government, the poorest people in this country have had the smallest increase?
  Mr. Newton: I do not think that there is any basis in the hon. Gentleman's report for that suggestion—[Interruption.] What I am saying—I think that he will accept this, because his own report makes the point—is that, at all levels of the income distribution, people have been getting better off during the lifetime of this Government.
  Mr. Meacher: The Select Committee has, of course, produced its own account, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of his written answers last July showed that, after housing costs, all those in the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution—the poorest tenth—were worse off by an average of 6 per cent., and that, according to the Government's own figures, those in the lowest percentile—more than half a million people—were worse off by more than 22 per cent.?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is taking us into an area which, as I think he knows, is the point at which the Select Committee and, perhaps even more importantly, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has accepted that the samples from which those figures are drawn do not allow that sort of conclusion to be drawn with the certainty with which the hon. Gentleman is pretending that it can.
  In addition—this is the point that the hon. Gentleman so often misses when talking about benefit rates—calculations that consider people's incomes after housing costs are artificial when compared with the way in which almost everybody regards their income. Furthermore, when he talks about people living on £40 a week, he is entirely overlooking the fact that, if they are householders, their housing costs will be met 100 per cent. either through

  521
  rent or through the payment of their mortgage interest. When compared with the rest of the population, we are talking about significantly greater sums being represented by the benefit rates, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.
  I prefer also to look at the clear practical evidence of the improvement that has been taking place for the groups that all hon. Members would regard as the people we particularly wish to help—the pensioners, disabled people and low-income families with children. An important point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—
  Ms. Mildred Gordon rose—
  Mr. Newton: No, in deference to what Mr. Speaker said earlier, I shall not give way again, because I wish to make progress.
  Pensioners' average net incomes grew by more than a third between 1979 and 1988. That income growth is certainly not less than was enjoyed by the rest of the population: indeed, it is probably marginally greater. Furthermore, it is not wholly or largely because of the state earnings-related pension scheme; it is due even more to the growth in savings incomes, which have more than doubled during the lifetime of this Government, but which fell in real terms under the last Labour Government. That increase in pensioners' average net incomes is also due to the increase in incomes from occupational pensions.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: What does my right hon. Friend think would happen to the savings income if a massive tax were imposed on it, as has been suggested by the Labour party?
  Mr. Newton: The most notable massive tax that Labour Governments have traditionally imposed on savings incomes is the one that caused the problems under the last Labour Government and led to a fall in the real value of savings incomes. It is the tax that is imposed by the rampant inflation with which Labour Governments have always been associated.
  I turn now to disabled people. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made some narrow references to the industrial injuries scheme, which is a very limited part of the benefits for disabled people. When the hon. Gentleman studies what he actually said—I am not sure whether it was what he meant—I am sure that he will agree that his remarks were totally and utterly misleading.
  The fact is that expenditure on benefits for disabled people has increased by more than 150 per cent. in real terms under the present Government. The number of people receiving mobility allowance has risen from fewer than 100,000 to more than 600,000. The number of people receiving attendance allowance has risen from about 250,000 to well over 750,000. In addition, the number of people receiving invalid care allowance has risen from 5,000 to 150,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Those are just numbers."] It is all very well to say that those are just numbers but, as I said at the outset, I am interested in trying to help people who need help to be better off.
  Even allowing for a measure of overlap of people receiving both attendance allowance and mobility allowance, in my judgment there is no way in which those figures could mean less than the fact that 1 million disabled people, who were not getting those benefits when the
  522
  present Government took office, now have a significantly higher standard of living as a result of what has transpired while this Government have been in office.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: How can the Secretary of State say that he is interested in helping people when his Government have increased VAT from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. while they have been in office? What has been the effect of that? Will he tell us the real problems that that increase and imposition have presented to elderly and sick people? Tell us its impact on people in poverty.
  Mr. Newton: The rates of taxation—whether indirect or direct—are taken into account when calculating the figures about which I had exchanges with the hon. Member for Birkenhead a few moments ago. The plain fact remains that the Select Committee concluded that real incomes have been rising right across the income band—
  Ms. Gordon rose
  Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way again for a moment.
  Apart from what has already been achieved in respect of the incomes of pensioners generally and in terms of directing additional help towards the less-well-off pensioners, which we have been doing consistently now for several years, and quite apart from the consistent improvements in the range and coverage of benefits for disabled people, we are now building on all that with the steps that we took at the time of the uprating in April.
  The further real increase in income support premiums for older and more disabled pensioners, the introduction of new disability benefits—I stress that they are new disability benefits—which will give real extra help of at least £11.55 per week to about 300,000 disabled people over and above the numbers that I have given previously for what has happened in the past 10 to 12 years, and the changes in family credit to which, in the interests of keeping my speech brief, I have not referred will all enhance both the opportunities and the incomes of several tens of thousands of low-income families with children.
  Even if the allegations that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has made about the scale of poverty could be made to run, and even if his proposed remedies were
  thought to be the right ones—on at least one occasion his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has suggested that he has some doubts about that—the plainly observable fact is that the policies of the hon. Gentleman and his party simply do not add up. A glaring gap in our debate so far has been that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to deal with that point, although this is the second time that it has happened within a year.
  Last March, we had the mini-shambles of the so-called "shadow Budget" which, if I remember rightly, did not even mention the so-called "priority" of retirement pensions. It contained what the hon. Gentleman described as a "carefully costed" proposal on child benefit which would have given money to every family except the least well-off—[Interruption.]—despite the fact that the document claimed that Labour's plans would give most help to low-income households. Just as that embarrassment might have been thought to be behind them, we have had the macro-shambles of what has happened in the past month.

  523
  First of all, there were the newspaper reports that other members of the shadow Cabinet were deeply frustrated with the way in which, true to form, the hon. Member for Oldham, West hijacked any extra cash that might be squeezed out of the taxpayer—to put it as the press reported it.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Newton: I am not giving way for the moment.
  Those newspaper reports left me with a sense of deja vu. They reminded me of a report in The Guardian of 19 July 1986 under the heading "Labour clash on Meacher 'shopping list'". It said that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), now the deputy leader of the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West were
  "in serious dispute last night about election promises on public expenditure".
  There were some interesting bits in the report, which could have been re-run by The Guardian in the past week or two.
  The self-same deputy leader of the Labour party said in the article:
  "Committing the party to doing specific things, at a specific cost, at specific times, will not improve our electoral prospects."
  The article also said:
  "In particular, the failure to spell out in detail new tax and insurance rates for higher earners is thought by Mr. Hattersley and some other colleagues to be a propaganda gift to the Government."
  All that I can say is that the attempt to spell them out has been an even bigger propaganda gift to the Government in the past few weeks.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Newton: Then, after that little flurry, we had the leader of the Labour party himself, no less, writing his new year letter to tens of thousands of households—I am not even sure that the figure given was not a million. I have the letter here. In it he promised, as indeed the hon. Member for Oldham, West attempted to do this afternoon:
  "anyone earning less than £21,000 annually … will not pay a penny extra in income tax or in national insurance".
  That is simply not true, and I think that the hon. Member
  for Oldham, West knows it—and even acknowledged it in his speech. He chose to wave it away by saying that it would be only a few tens or hundreds.
  A great many more people than that will pay more. Anyone who receives regular payments for commission or bonuses or who does substantial amounts of overtime will be significantly hit by the plans that the hon. Gentleman espouses and reiterated this afternoon. If he intends to continue espousing those plans, he had better drop that guarantee, because it is simply not true.
  Mr. Graham Allen: On specific costs and promises, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell us what are his Government's specific promises—should they ever win the next election—in respect of pensions, child benefit and disability benefits? Is the right hon. Gentleman still holding to the position that those will all be increased in line with inflation?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that, at this very moment, our commitments are those which we will
  524
  implement in the April uprating. Of course, our general policies for the future will be set out when the time comes in a manifesto for the electorate. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman now, because we have made it clear on each and every front in recent weeks. We have made it clear that child benefit will be uprated in line with inflation. We have made it clear, despite repeated attempts by the hon. Member for Oldham, West to suggest otherwise, that we remain absolutely committed to the retirement pension and to protecting it against increases in prices. The hon. Gentleman need not doubt our continued commitment to protecting the value of disability benefits such as those I have talked about this afternoon, at a time when, far from cutting support to disabled people, we are extending those benefits.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. I am pleased to hear his assurances that increases in all those benefits will be related to the rise in inflation. He will have read the survey published by, not the Labour party—our costings do not have a party political basis, unlike those of the Secretary of State—but Midland Montagu, a respected and one could hardly say pro-Labour organisation. It concluded that, if they were kept, the Secretary of State's promises would cost another £25 billion in public expenditure. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to pay for it, if he is elected?
  Mr. Newton: That is a nonsense point. The Government's commitments on price protection or other uprating conventions for social security benefits are allowed for in the Government's public expenditure plans.
  Mr. Allen: What plans?
  Mr. Newton: Published, well known, well set out and beautifully presented plans.
  The point about the commitments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend make is that they are over and above the Government's carefully costed commitments. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of the cost of his proposals unless he is prepared to tell me that he will go back on the commitments that we have made. He will not, will he?
  Mr. Allen: I am happy to continue the dialogue with the Secretary of State. The Midland Montagu survey—not a party political survey and not one with which I would necessarily agree in every detail—says that the Secretary of State's proposals, as outlined today, would cost an additional £25 billion. Those are the words of an independent survey. Apparently, the whole Conservative package comes to an extra £35 billion.
  Again, these are not statements which go on the hoardings. They are not party political propaganda. They are part of an independent survey. I give the Secretary of State the chance again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave him the chance on four occasions, to answer the question directly—how will a new Conservative Government pay for it?
  Mr. Newton: As I have already said, the point is a complete nonsense point. Our commitments are part of carefully costed plans published in the ordinary way. It does not alter the fact that the Opposition's promises would not reduce the commitments that have already been entered into and planned for. The Opposition would pile another £37 billion on top of them.

  525
  That point brings me to the dog which astonishingly has not barked during the debate. It is the answer to the questions which everyone in the House and outside has asked in the light of the incredible confusion of recent weeks, when the whole package that Labour had said was carefully worked out and costed crashed into splinters on a dinner table in Luigi's in Covent Garden.
  It may be that this afternoon the hon. Member for Oldham, West has answered one of the questions—whether the priority pledges are still priority pledges. I think that it could be read into his remarks that they are. But there were only two priority pledges in everything that we have heard until now. There is another in the motion, and the hon. Gentleman referred to it in his speech. It is the restoration of the earnings link.
  If that is a priority pledge, is it also for immediate implementation? If so, that is another substantial increase in the Labour party's "immediate bill"—to use its words—which it does not know how to meet. Is the hon. Member for Oldham, West going to answer these questions? They are the questions to which everyone wants to know the answer. Indeed, we need to know the answer to have any chance whatever of judging just what Opposition Members think they are saying. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to answer—
  Mr. Meacher rose —
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State is getting very nervous in his fabrication of bogus questions. We have made it absolutely clear that the pensions link with earnings will be restored. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Perhaps Conservative Members who want to know the exact date when all these changes will be made will answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) just asked. The Government propose to cut income tax by 5p, from 25p to 20p. At what rate will it be phased in? All in the first year? Or 1p a year? How will it be paid for? That is not in the Government's public expenditure plans.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that any reduction in income tax will be subject to all the usual considerations at a particular point in time and that no commitment has been made about specific timing.
  Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
  Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way, as this is important.
  We are faced with something quite different from any aim that the Government might have to reduce income tax further. As I understand it—the hon. Member for Oldham, West can tell me if I am wrong—we are confronting firm commitments, which have frequently been reiterated, to implement promises on child benefit and the retirement pension immediately. The hon. Gentleman does not dispute that.
  In the motion, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has linked a third ingredient—the earnings link—which had never been put in those terms before. That implies that it should be seen in those terms. I can only read into what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has just said the fact that restoration of the earnings link is not a priority for immediate implementation but what the hon.
  526
  Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would describe as a "desirable aim"—this year, next year, some time or never.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Could my right hon. Friend help me in my confusion? I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) say that he felt that our social security programme was too expensive and that Midland Montagu had quoted a price of about £25 billion. Did my right hon. Friend gather from that that the Labour party was thinking of cutting our social security expenditure programme? If expenditure were to increase above that, how is the money to be found?
  Would my right hon. Friend kindly help me, because I am increasingly confused by the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said that the Labour party programme will include a link with earnings for retirement pensions. Government may have some control over inflation, but it is absolute pie in the sky for any party to say that a link could be attached to average earnings, over which there is no control.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend underlines the argument I was seeking to make in response to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. Of course, the Government have clearly set out, in a variety of documents, their forward commitments on public expenditure. Nothing suggested by the Labour party would reduce those commitments, but it has put forward a wide range of proposals—including the proposal that my hon. Friend adverts to—which would increase those commitments by about £37 billion, and we do not yet know how that will be paid for. We do not even know how the so-called immediate priority commitments would be paid for.
  From widely reported events involving the Leader of the Opposition, we understand that the critical ingredient—the removal of the upper earnings limit—is likely to be phased in. Will it be phased in? If so, how? Will those closer to the earnings limit—the less well-off—get the first bash, or will all those involved pay 5 per cent. in the first year, 7 per cent. in the second and reach 9 per cent. in the third? In that case, phasing in simply means that the same group of people will be clobbered not once but year in, year out, for as long as it takes to get the money.
  Crucially, since we were told that the package was carefully costed and balanced, if revenue is to be phased in, will commitments be phased in too? Do they cease to be immediate priorities?
  I sense that I shall get no further answers, and I conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman's statistics do not add up and his financial calculations and policies do not stand up. Both the House and the country will rightly conclude that they should vote his motion down.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I do not intend to continue the conversation about statistics as the Secretary of State has largely conceded that argument. I merely put on record that his quotations from the report of the Select Committee on Social Security were highly selective, especially the crucial quotation about average living standards having increased. Under the Government's stewardship, the poorest people have received the smallest increase. I hope that before the end of the debate someone

  527
  will have read the report for the Secretary of State and passed him a note so that his junior colleague can put that on record.
  I wish to mention some of my constituents who are now without hope because of the policies pursued by the Government. I do not say that everyone in Birkenhead is in that position, nor that some people have not managed to improve their lot during the Government's stewardship, but I wish to register the fact that destroying people's hope destroys something important for their status as citizens and I shall devote the four minutes of my contribution to that.
  I hope that if I introduce some of my constituents to the House and to the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the junior Minister to provide in his reply the message that he wishes me to take home to them.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Vote Labour!
  Mr. Field: Apart from the Whip's general comment, for the first group we want immediate hope rather than waiting until April or May. The first group comprises those who have left school and have no work and are not on a training course. The Government made a promise about the courses that would be available, but they have shifted on that. I refer not to the Department of Social Security but to the Department of Employment. There was a specific promise that people not at school and not in work would be guaranteed a training place. That has been relegated to a general promise, but my young constituents are not covered by a general promise—they are individuals, and a small army of them do not have the training places that they want and have great difficulty in drawing benefit. What message does the Secretary of State want me to take home to them?
  The second group are those who have left school with no hope of finding work. As the unemployment figures rise, more people's heads are pushed below the sea of unemployment and remain below it for some considerable time. A group of people in Birkenhead, after leaving school and trying and failing to get work, are now bringing up families but have never known what it is like to work. What hope has the Secretary of State to offer them? They are not terribly interested in the figures that he is bandying across the Dispatch Box. They want the chance to work. What concrete hope does he hold out for them?
  Thirdly, what hope does the Secretary of State hold out for the young mother who came to my surgery and matter of factly described the difference between sleeping on the floor of her parents-in-law's home, which is carpeted, and sleeping on her own floor with no carpet? What hope does he hold out for my constitutents who find themselves in that position? What hope does the Secretary of State hold out for other young constituents who, after years without work, have managed to find it? One constituent, because he had to get to work before public transport started running in the morning, had to buy a bicycle to get through the Mersey tunnel to work. Because he wanted to work, he snatched at that opportunity. The employer, knowing his power because many other young people wanted the job, played the field and sacked him. Now he has to meet the debt caused by the bicycle. He searched again for a job and found one in Chester. The employer,
  528
  aware of his powerful position, would not pay in advance but told my constituent that he would have to exist in some way or other until the normal pay day came round. Given the rules that the Department operates, what hope does the right hon. Gentleman hold out for such young constituents who are struggling for work?
  The debate is about showing that, whereas some people are not at the bottom of the pile, many are just a few wage packets or salary cheques from being pushed to the bottom.
  A constituent of mine, who worked at Cammell Laird, had a heart attack. The first correspondence that he received from the company after the heart attack was to tell him that he had been made redundant. He has two young sons; one is working and the other is not. The working son earns a low wage and the other is on benefit and therefore should be making a contribution toward the costs of the household. As the Minister knows, the benefit for those in that son's age group is desperately low. But the son in work earns even less than the son on benefit and finds it even more difficult to make a contribution to the household.
  That former worker at Laird's told me with great pride that the one great thing that he has done is to bring up a loving family. That is his great treasure, but he now realises that if he and his wife are to survive and get the extra help that they need, he will have to put his sons out. More help would then be available because the sons would not be considered as part of the household. That is the way the Government have been destroying hope over a long period.
  The next election will not be fought on the finer points of the Select Committee report or what consultants say will be the costs of the next programmes: it will be fought, I hope, on the fact that the Labour party appreciates what the difficulties are and is determined in the next Parliament to give back hope to those people at the bottom of society who have had their hope destroyed by the Conservative Government.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I have been lucky enough to do so on a number of occasions in social security debates. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow the comments that he so movingly made about his constituents.
  I think that it was Abraham Lincoln who said 140 years ago:
  "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time."
  In the past few months, and certainly in the past three weeks, the Labour party has been trying to defy that norm and to fool all the people all of the time. The hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) have been trawling up and down the country trying to outbid each other in the promises and commitments that they have made to special interest groups in the sole desire to win votes for the Labour party at the next general election.
  Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman yet. Will he please sit down?
  Mr.Allen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on.
  Mr. Burns: The House will find that the hon. Gentleman will speak to disabled groups and promise them more money immediately.
  Mr.Allen rose—
  Mr. Burns: I shall give way when I finish the point. The hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Oldham, West have visited groups of young mothers, the elderly, pregnant mothers, young people, and the long-term unemployed and promised them all more money. What is happening is a cruel deception. Those hon. Members are speaking to audiences and telling them what they think those people want to hear in the hope that they will vote for the Labour party when polling day comes. I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North now.
  Mr. Allen: No, thank you; I have changed my mind.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to have silenced the hon. Gentleman. That does not happen often.
  What groups have not been singled out by the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of British politics in their grubby pursuit of votes for the Labour party? It is like a magic roundabout—and when the roundabout comes full circle they are not lost for time, but start again outbidding each other with further promises to all those special interest groups to try to secure their votes.
  We have a further problem, although it does not seem to matter to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, when it comes to what has become known in British political history as "Beckett's law". The Labour party is spreading pledges of spending money like confetti, but Beckett's law states that only child benefit and pensions will be the priority. However, we learned last night in the debate on the autumn statement that a third priority is to be added to Beckett's law, relating to industrial policy.
  The shadow Department of Social Security team has pledged £15 billion of spending commitments. That is no more than a cynical attempt to win votes. The Opposition are building up hopes and expectations, but if we were ever unfortunate enough to have a Labour Government, those aspirations would be cruelly destroyed by the reality of office because the Labour party has no ability to honour so many of the pledges that it has made.
  For party political reasons, the Labour party refuses to recognise what has been done by the Government to help the genuinely less well off, the disabled, the unemployed, the elderly and the sick. In the past 12 years, a great deal has been done. It ill befits any politician to criticise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As a junior Minister, and as a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for social security, he has fought his corner decisively to ensure that more money is made available by the mandarins at the Treasury to help the less well off in our society.
  No one listening to the doom and gloom of the hon. Member for Oldham, West would fully appreciate the exact size of our social security budget. From April this year, the social security budget will be more than £70 billion per year. Those hon. Members who do not appreciate the sheer size of that budget should bear in mind that it is equivalent to £1.35 billion per week, £192
  530
  million per day or £8 million for every hour of every day of every week of the year. That is all being spent to provide for the less well off in society. It is a pity that the Opposition do not have the decency and integrity to acknowledge that fact and to mention it once or twice.
  One would think that there was not a penny in the social security budget if one listened to the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Oldham, West day after day in the Chamber and in the country. They complain about and cry down every Government addition to the social security budget. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech, and as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Oldham, West, they fail to do justice to the fact that pensions have increased in real terms and money for the sick and the disabled has increased in the past 12 years. I honestly believe that a little more credit should be given for the money that has gone in particular to the sick and disabled to help them in their times of crisis and to make their lives better. In 1988, eight out of 10 pensioners had extra income from savings, compared with six out of 10 under the previous Labour Government, and 73 per cent. have additional occupational pensions compared with 52 per cent. in 1979. We have heard no mention of family credit, which helps a record 356,000 families—four times as many as those helped under the old family income supplement in 1979.
  We have heard little today from the Opposition about the substantial extra help given to pensioners over 75 and to those below that age who are disabled. Apart from their hollow spending promises, Labour's only answer is a minimum wage. Imagine the fatuous reality of implementing that proposal in this country. A minimum wage would do more to put people out of work than any help it was designed to give. Experience in France and the United States shows that a minimum wage is a con. It would be a con on the British people, for while it sounds simplistically attractive in principle, in practice it would cause more misery by causing more job losses.
  Labour also proposes the introduction of a pickpocket tax that would have made Fagin proud to be associated with it. It would mean more money being taken from the people—[Interruption.] I refer, of course, to the proposal to abolish the ceiling on national insurance contributions. Many more people would be hit by that than Labour Members dare to mention. That has become obvious in the past two weeks in the shambles and infighting among members of the shadow Cabinet, who fear that Labour has been rumbled in terms of its tax and national insurance plans.
  The Opposition motion is a sham and should be seen as such. The country at large should accept that dogs bark, cats miaow, and Labour taxes and spends.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will forgive me if I do not adopt his approach to the debate. I would prefer—if I had to choose—the approach of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  I hope that we shall take the opportunity of the public discussions that will take place in the period leading up to the general election to try as best we can—I appreciate the party political pressures—to transform the debate to enable ordinary people to understand what is going on. When we come to the fine detail of issues, it is easy to lose

  531
  people, especially when we refer to large sums of money. For example, £35 billion does not mean a lot to people in Hawick high street. We forget that in the heat of political jousting. I make no complaint about that, because I shall be doing my fair share of dishing it out when the time comes. Let us bear that in mind as we near the election.
  There are two ways of considering social security provision and the system as a whole. The Conservatives are more in favour—I put it no higher than that—of a low tax, low benefit system. They have been moving over the years in the direction of the American system—[Interruption.] I think I see the Minister of State dissenting from that view. I do not say that our system is anything like as freewheeling and inadequate as the American, but that is the direction in which we have been going. If there had to be a choice between two systems, it is fair to say that the continuing trend that we have experienced under Conservative rule in the last 12 years has been to make provision, but to try to constrain the benefits system while maintaining a low-tax economy.
  The alternative system—this is common ground, certainly bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—represents a trend in the opposite direction. We on the Opposition Benches would be prepared to carry a higher burden of taxation and to redeploy or redistribute the money in as sensible a way as possible. While there may be substantial differences between my party and Labour about how that money would be redeployed, I have basically described the divide between the two sides of the House.
  In other words, the electorate have a clear choice. I am happy to go to the voters on the basic principle that they have a straight alternative between the Government position and the proposals of the Opposition parties. That is almost as far as one need go to enable people to make a sensible choice.
  Even so, important subsidiary arguments can be brought to bear. The Government must defend their record. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I dissent from the official Opposition view that everything that the Government have done has been a disaster. The Minister of State can take credit, along with the Secretary of State, who has fought his corner well—the Treasury has been the problem in many respects—for many of the changes for the good affecting the disabled.
  The Government must defend their record in terms of the amount that the social security budget consumes because of the level of unemployment in Britain. In other words, part of the social security argument must be about the way in which the Conservatives have managed the economy. Indeed, if they continue to make the sort of mess that they have been making—particularly recalling the 1987–88 period, when they made substantial blunders as a result of deregulating the economy, with the explosion of credit and so on—we shall find ourselves in an even worse situation.
  I fear that high levels of unemployment will be with us for much longer than we would like to see. If that turns out to be the case, our plans for long-term social security planning will have to be revised, even if the Conservatives are returned to power. After all, £35 billion will not go far in the next five to 10 years if chronically high levels of unemployment persist. So we must decide which side of the
  532
  argument we are on. Do we want a transatlantic model of social security provision, or more of a European, collective scheme of the type that my hon. Friends and I favour?
  We can have a meaningful debate about the way in which benefits are deployed. Having served on the Standing Committee which considered the Social Security Act 1986, certain areas of provision are causing me concern. I accept that recent increases in provision for the over-75s have helped, but the present generation of pensioners do not receive a basic level of support as a result of the changes that were made in the 1986 Act. Some of the changes resulting from that legislation have been welcome, but major problems must be addressed because of the structure that was created by that Act.
  The provision made for those in the 16-to-17 and, generally, the under-25 age groups must be reconsidered, because there have been some unforeseen consequences of that legislation. Some of those changes are being seen in the streets now. I feel sure that that was not the Government's intention, and that they are as concerned as anyone else to remedy matters. Whatever the complexion of the next Government, they will have to deal with those issues.
  I am concerned about the way in which the social fund changes have been made. I have constituents with what I consider to be bona fide claims which the social fund cannot meet, and the next Administration, whatever their complexion, will have to deal with those. I have not seen the Secretary of State lose many arguments in exchanges across the Floor of the House, but he lost substantially when he took on the hon. Member for Birkenhead after having foolishly quoted selectively from the Select Committee report.
  While I am willing to hear the Government's answer, it seems incontrovertible that the bottom one fifth, particularly pensioners, have lost in the total income increase of 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. That poorest fifth receives a 19 per cent. increase. If that is allowed to continue year in, year out, the next Government will have to deal with it one way or another. It may be expensive, and they may have to be ingenious in how they target the money. I do not care how it is done, but something must be done in the medium to long term to cope with the problem.
  We have spent precious little time debating the levels of benefit. We must look much more carefully at how the demographic structure is changing. The "Social Trends" report published recently makes an important contribution to that. It has become difficult to describe family structure, which has become a meaningless concept, because there is such a diverse and wide range of combinations, and it is becoming ever more complicated. That may be good or bad—I make no judgment—but, in trying to deal with income problems from the social security bunker, we can easily forget that some of the overlapping changes in the population's social structure have a severe and dramatic impact.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact of long-term unemployment on the hope in people's hearts, to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead referred. The social security system may not be adequate to deal with that, and the voluntary sector may have a role to play. I do not suggest that the voluntary sector in terms of charity should replace the money provided, but it could play a greater role.

  533
  Finally, I am very worried about rural poverty. My constituency is a rural area and it looks idyllic, as Ministers who have visited it will confirm. Of my 103,000 constituents, 5,000 pensioners and 6,000 non-pensioners are on income support. If dependants' families are counted, some 17,000 people are dependent on income support in the borders and south-east Scotland. The poor are getting poorer, and rural poverty is beginning to be an issue for the first time since I came to the House in 1983. I hope that the Government will do something about that.
  If the Minister of State wants to do something immediately, will he talk to the Benefits Agency about the relocation of the cold weather payment temperature station? I have just checked the figures, and I have found that the Eskdalemuir station has been triggered 11 times in the past six years. The newly selected Boulmer station, which serves a large chunk of my constituency since the recent changes, has been triggered only once in that period. The system may have been unfair before, but it is now extremely unfair. I shall take the Minister to Eskdalemuir and Boulmer if he would like to come. He had better bring his kilt and his thermal underwear, because the point will be made to him graphically. If some of those points were made to the DSS, a better system could be introduced.
  6.3 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I rise to oppose the Opposition motion and to support the Prime Minister's amendment because real freedom is economic, and the freedom to earn and spend one's own money as one wishes, untrammelled by state control, is the truest freedom of all.
  When I consider how the Government have managed to increase the economic freedom of the British people, I see a good track record. That is why, despite my lifetime's work for those in need in the United Kingdom and overseas, in common with the work of so many colleagues in the House, I do not believe that the Opposition's vision of the United Kingdom is realistic. Indeed, were the Opposition to reach the status of Government for which they fight so hard, growth in the United Kingdom would be badly hindered because we would have lost our product champion. The Conservative party can champion the United Kingdom, but the Opposition cannot do so because their vision of this country growing ever poorer is ever further from reality.
  Since 1979, the net disposable income of the average family has risen by 37 per cent.—a truly massive increase. I am sorry that there is a recession, but it is, after all, world wide and not unique to Britain. Despite the recession, Britain has achieved 800,000 new jobs since 1979. In addition, 3 million new firms have been created, which is nearly a two thirds increase in the number of businesses. Despite the depressing figures pumped out by the Opposition on firms going bankrupt and companies going into liquidation, in the past 12 months for which figures are available there were only 30,000 insolvencies—just 3 per cent. of the total number of firms in the United Kingdom.
  The authoritative low income statistics produced by the Select Committee on Social Security in May 1991 and commissioned by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies show that real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in
  534
  real income at all levels of the income scale. I mentioned earlier that the net disposable income of the average family had risen by 37 per cent. Although averages are difficult to grasp when one is feeling the pinch, which is an uncomfortable position to be in, real disposable incomes in the United Kingdom as a whole rose by nearly a third. Indeed, households at the very bottom income decile saw their incomes rise by 9.5 per cent. during that period. Less well-off families with children also saw large increases.
  The incomes of non-pensioner couples in the bottom half of the income bracket with children rose by 19 per cent. in real terms, and even the poorest fifth of full-time workers were 21 per cent. better off in 1988 than in 1981. According to the Select Committee report, the number of people on less than half the average income in 1979—when that is held constant in real terms—fell from 3.7 million to 2.5 million. Those who were pensioners in the bottom half of the income decile fell from 29 per cent. to 23 per cent., with a consequent fall also in the number of pensioners.
  Statisticians know how difficult it is to make meaningful comparisons. The Library managed to give me an index showing wages and salaries in 48 major cities. On this basis, London is 24th in terms of gross salary and 22nd in terms of net salary. That means that people here get a higher net salary than people in Stockholm or in Paris. On top of that, believe it or not, house prices in the United Kingdom are relatively cheap, especially in comparison with Germany, one of our largest and most influential competitors.
  Far from being able to support the Opposition motion, I put it to the House that this country and western Europe have had a long and perhaps unique period of growth over the past 12 years. The Opposition cannot pretend that that is due to their policies. It is due to good, solid, Conservative free market policies. I know that the Labour party says that it is no longer socialist, despite its continued return to centralism. But if socialist policies were able to achieve those much higher levels of income for the human race, why is it that the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, with their new conditionalities for helping the poorer countries of the world to improve their incomes, do not follow socialist policies? The new conditionalities that govern the lending proposals of the World bank and the IMF, the lending proposals that have helped poorer countries get upstairs in terms of income and share western European and British prosperity, are free market conditionalities. They are the free market with a heart—in other words, the true Conservative philosophy.
  That is why I suggest that the Labour party is misleading the public grotesquely, sadly, disgracefully, abominably. I do not think that the public are willing to be misled. I honour the Labour party for trying to be the modern Robin Hood, but its facade of a modern Robin Hood will not work. I give one small example: despite the Labour party's social security promises to raise child benefit and payments to pensioners, an Opposition spokesman has already managed to account for nearly half that spending wish-list, £15 billion out of £35 billion, by talking about other commitments which are supposedly equally high priorities.
  The truth is that the Labour party will not mislead the public sufficiently to be elected, because the public are too hard-headed. The country has grown wealthier and happier under our management and will continue to thrive.
  6.13 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: I must say to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that "Social Trends", published yesterday, shows that the incomes of the top 5 per cent. of the population have increased, whereas the incomes of the bottom 5 per cent. have fallen. That is the answer to many of her points.
  I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the country, a constituency in Tower Hamlets. I can cite, from experience at my surgery, hundreds of cases of poverty and people living in hardship that would wring the hearts of even Conservative Members. I shall deal with statistics that draw together different sections of the population and show what is happening and how poverty is increasing. I shall mostly use official Government statistics on households with below average incomes.
  The Government have tried repeatedly to change the definition of poverty. They accept that, if a person is dying of starvation, he or she is living in poverty. But they will not accept what most people believe, that if one cannot keep up with the community in which one is living, if one cannot send one's children properly clothed and shod to school and give them enough money to take part in extra-curricular activities, if one cannot give them a decent meal and some presents at Christmas—in other words, keep within the society on a decent level—one is poor and living in poverty.
  The attempt to redefine poverty has gone on for a long time. In May 1989, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), the then Secretary of State for Social Security, made a speech under the heading, "The end of the line for poverty", in which he had the cheek to claim that poverty no longer existed in Britain. Other Conservative Members have also tried to make that point. The storm that that speech provoked proved to be the end of the line for the right hon. Gentleman. He should have known better, because he told me at one time that he grew up in the east end of London. But he did not know better—he had forgotten what poverty was.
  The Government continually try to fiddle figures. Unfortunately, despite their attempt to appear to abolish poverty, it has continued to increase. They try to abolish the word from their official reports instead of trying to abolish poverty itself.
  In 1989, the Government's own manicured figures showed that the number of people at or below supplementary benefit level had grown by more than 50 per cent. Their response was merely to abolish the low-income family statistical series and replace it with the households below average income series, which they hoped would disguise the trend of increasing poverty. Unfortunately, the trend was so stark that no amount of statistical manipulation could make it vanish.
  The Government's statistics show that the number of people in families earning below 50 per cent. of average income did not just double between 1979 and 1988, but increased by more than two and a half times from 4,930,000 to 11,750,000. The figure of 10 million has been quoted, but the Government's statistics show that it was 11,750,000. Those statistics have been confirmed by independent researchers, such as the Breadline British team, who carry out scientific studies of poverty and deprivation in Britain today. The figures also show that more than 11 million people live in direst poverty—that
  536
  means that 20 per cent. of the population and more than 25 per cent. of our children live on or below the breadline. That is a dreadful picture, but it is true.
  Margaret Thatcher repeatedly claimed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
  Ms. Gordon: I am sorry. The previous Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—repeatedly claimed that everyone had become better off under the Conservatives. What a terrible slip: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen are very worried that I used the name instead of the constituency, but I doubt that the unemployed will worry unduly.
  The Government's statistics state that in 1979 there were 1 million unemployed people in Britain, but in 1988 there were more than 2.5 million unemployed people living in poverty. I believe that there are many more than 2.5 million unemployed people living in poverty, but let us take that figure, which is awful enough. The families of these unemployed people have not done better under the Conservatives.
  Then there are the pensioners. In 1979, there were just over 1 million pensioners living in poverty. By 1988, there were more than 3.5 million. Those people have not done better under the Conservatives. In 1979, there were just over 1 million low-paid full-time workers living in poverty. In 1988 the number had risen to 2.5 million. Low-paid workers have not done better under the Conservatives either. In 1979, there were 500,000 single parents living in poverty. In 1988, there were 1.5 million.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Gordon: No, I will not. The Minister refused to give way to me twice. I have only a short time and I will not give way. I want to finish drawing this picture.
  By 1988, 1.5 million single parents, three quarters of all single-parent families, lived in poverty. They have not done better under the Conservatives.
  The last group I want to mention was dealt with at length by the Minister—the sick and the disabled. The increases in benefits for the sick and the disabled have not been sufficient to shield even them from the overall effects of Government policies. Yesterday's "Social Trends" showed that, whereas the top 5 per cent. of the population spent 12.4 per cent. of their income on indirect taxation, indirect taxation took up 24 per cent. of the income of those in the bottom 5 per cent., which includes the sick and disabled. That is just one example. By 1988, three quarters of a million sick and disabled people were living on low incomes. Clearly, they are not better off under the Conservatives.
  The increase in poverty has taken a terrible toll. Its effects can be seen by everyone in the number of youngsters begging in the streets. I remember going to Paris with my school the year before the war, when I was 15, and seeing beggars outside Notre Dame. I was shocked because it was the first time that I had ever seen beggars. One did not see beggars even during the depression but now one can see them everywhere on our streets. While we sit in the warm and dry, thousands of old people sit huddled over one-bar fires in cold, damp houses. Those are the terrible effects of poverty.
  Poverty has also had an effect on health. Look at the statistics. For 150 years, the death rate for young males between the ages of one and 44 had been falling—the only interruption in that decline being the slaughter of young

  537
  men during two world wars. Now doctors save more and more lives but, since 1985, the death rate for males in that age group has started to increase. The Government have managed to achieve what previously only the German armies achieved. Why are young men dying? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] Okay. Of the richer countries in the world, only Britain and America, which pursues the same voodoo economics as we do, have an increasing death rate among young males. The Registrar-General's report and the report of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys—the House will admit that that is not a biased Labour report—stated that the main causes of the decline were poor diet and suicide. In the past 12 years, the suicide rate of young men has risen dramatically—by 50 per cent.
  The desperation caused by poverty is increasing and making more and more young men suicidal, but it is women who are bearing the brunt of that increasing poverty. They have to absorb and handle the whole family's emotional turmoil, trauma and despair caused by unemployment. They also make up the majority in all the disadvantaged groups whom I have mentioned. They are the majority of pensioners and, therefore, of the sick and disabled. They are the majority of low-paid part-time workers. They are the majority of single parents. They are also the widows of those who have died prematurely. Women are certainly not better off under the Conservatives.
  6.22 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I wish to address the issue of poverty in my constituency and as it affects many of my constituents, and to focus specifically on the related issues of ill health, unemployment, old age and inequality.
  I represent a diverse constituency made up of deeply rural, scattered, ex-mining villages—geographically isolated and suffering from heavy structural unemployment—and large so-called peripheral housing estates, housing people from the conurbations of Middlesbrough and Stockton. Those areas too suffer from high and continuing unemployment—its effects made worse by the comparative isolation from the facilities of central Middlesbrough and from families and friends still living in the town.
  I do not intend to be emotional on these subjects—although emotions certainly run high when local people discuss the Government's wicked and callous neglect of areas such as Langbaurgh. I intend to make the figures speak for themselves.
  Experts have long recognised that there is a causal relationship between unemployment and ill health. Much of the pioneering work on the subject was carried out on Teesside—in particular in Stockton-on-Tees—in the early 1930s, when empirical and sustainable evidence was first produced to suggest that the links between health, nutrition, disposable income and work patterns were strong, lifelong and of the community and—perhaps most important in today's terms—that the problems were solvable.
  It is perhaps a mark of how similar the 1930s and the present day have been on Teesside that the work has been taken up again. In the late 1980s, Cleveland county council, together with representatives of the community health councils in the county and the then family practitioner committee, issued a report on the health divide which appeared to characterise the Cleveland
  538
  community. The report—called "The Health Legacy"—showed comprehensively and conclusively that, in terms of physical health, there was a clear link between poverty and unemployment and ill health. The study showed that, according to the figures available, above-average death rates resulted in more than 800 extra deaths per year. Deaths from diseases of the lung were running at 25 per cent. above average. People in Cleveland die almost two years younger than other members of the wider community.
  The links between poverty and ill health were graphically depicted. In parts of the borough of Langbaurgh where, as a result of the Government's policies, unemployment and poverty are part of the social landscape, the mortality rate rises to as much as 50 per cent. above the national rate and can be twice as high as in the more fortunate parts of the county of Cleveland. Put simply, the gulf in health and mortality between the rich and the poor in Cleveland is among the most extreme in the whole of the United Kingdom and some local people in areas of high disadvantage can expect to live 10 years less than those in the more affluent suburbs.
  I represent parts of the county where the picture is bleakest. The study to which I referred earlier—"The Health Legacy"—showed that the east Cleveland villages of Skinningrove and Brotton and the south Middlesbrough overspill estate of Hemlington have 'standardised mortality ratios'—the official measure of the death rate—running between 15 and 50 per cent. above the national average. To put it quite simply, there are communities in my constituency where, because of the high incidence of unemployment and low income, people have a lower expectation of life and a more unhealthy existence than anyone living in the comparative comfort of southern England—and certainly of anyone here tonight.
  It is not just a question of unemployment. Ageing, ill health and poverty are all linked. The elderly are the largest single group living on low incomes in my constituency—25 per cent. The majority are widowed, live alone and are utterly vulnerable to the effects of poverty, many having no occupational pension. Labour Members know—and Conservative Members know privately, even if they have to deny it publicly—that basic state pensions have had the little purchasing power that they once possessed cut drastically. It is a simple fact—but one that needs to be uttered time and again—that, if earnings indexation had not been ended in 1980, the basic pension would now be £17.50 higher than it is. Nationally, one third of the elderly are below what we consider to be the poverty line—three times the rate for the population as a whole.
  Elderly people also suffer in terms of access to what many people regard as normal parts of daily life. The mushroom growth of out-of-town retailing—shopping designed to meet the needs of the high-spending car owner—has forced many elderly people to use expensive estate stores, or even dearer mobile shops. The value of an already depleted pension is thus eroded even further.
  The outline of poverty in Cleveland is sharply focused. The areas where poverty is at its worst are bleakly obvious. Unemployment and ill health are the most obvious features, but low wages, the loss of assured, continued employment, the break-up of marriages, the loss of stable family relationships, and eroded—indeed, almost valueless—benefits are all part of a deadly spiral that absorbs all too many of my constituents.

  539
  The dimensions of poverty are self-evident. The situation has worsened. The yawning gap between low incomes and high incomes has widened. Wealth generates wealth. Only last week, the Inland Revenue published figures showing that the richest 1 per cent. of the population own 18 per cent. of the nation's marketable wealth—the wealth contained in homes, household durables, savings and investments—whereas the poorest 50 per cent., or half of the population, own less than 6 per cent. of that marketable wealth.
  The decline in mortality nationally has been more marked among manual workers and the unemployed than among the nation's white-collar workers, and there is evidence that this trend is accelerating. The Tory think tanks, which argued that wealth would trickle down, that increased prosperity for the rich would have an impact on the lives of the poor, have been shown to have been telling fairy stories. Instead of wealth trickling down, we have seen wealth streaming upwards.
  The legacy of Lloyd George, Beveridge and Aneurin Bevan—a decent health and national insurance scheme—has been squandered in 13 short years. Benefits are dismal and have been eroded in value. In 1979, the state pension was 20 per cent. of average earnings. I believed then, and I still believe, that that figure was too low, but even it has been cut and now stands at 16 per cent.
  I intended to speak about various other aspects of this matter——
  Mr. Allen: Wrap it up.
  Dr. Kumar: I have been told from the Front Bench to wrap it up.
  In conclusion, I have to say that, as a Member of Parliament representing an area where poverty is an inescapable fact of daily life and not merely a subject for a college lecture theatre, I am deeply and utterly angered by the conditions in which far too many of my constituents have to live. I am deeply angered too by the disinterested and offhand treatment meted out to the poor by the present Government. I have seen too much silent suffering, too many families faced with disintegration, to treat this matter as an idle debating foil.
  The poorest in our society need a Labour Government. They need a Labour Government who recognise the importance of ordinary human needs; they need a Labour Government who have the insight, the ability and the muscle to change things for the better and to aid their own community in its task of mapping out its destiny. They need, above everything else, the knowledge that they can come out from the shadows to which they have been consigned by 13 years of Tory heartlessness and indifference.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) have told the House how so many of their constituents are suffering as a result of Government policy. I wish to do likewise, and to do so by briefly making three points.
  Undoubtedly, many pensioners live in great poverty. I understand that the Government do not deny this, but they say that most pensioners have improved their lot—
  540
  something that we question. None the less, they do accept that many pensioners suffer hardship. Indeed, they could hardly deny it.
  This week, I received from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), an interesting answer to a question that I had tabled. It illustrates only too well what we are concerned about and what we want to see changed. The junior Minister informed me that, according to the latest information, 22 per cent. of pensioners have an income of less than £60 per week.
  Can hon. Members imagine what it is like to live on less than £60 a week? If there are Conservative Members who believe that it is easy, that no great hardship is involved, let them try it for just a short period. That is something that I have suggested before. According to the answer to which I have just referred, 38 per cent. of pensioners have an income of less than £70 a week. As the pension is increased only with price increases, any change that has occurred since those figures were provided cannot have made a great difference.
  That is the background to this debate so far as a very large group of people—the pensioners—are concerned, leaving aside people of working age who are unemployed. When so many retired people in this country have to live on such incomes, it is clear that there is something wrong. It is understandable that so many pensioners should take the view that they are considerably worse off than pensioners in many other European Community countries.
  I want to mention also the changes that occurred in 1980, when the link with earnings was broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that pensioners had lost, I think, £23 a week. In fact, he was being too generous to the Government. A note that I have received from the Library shows that, if the pension had been increased in line with earnings since 1980, married couples would be better off, by April of this year, by £28 a week, and single people by £17.65. That is how much pensioners have lost. Had the link not been broken, pensioners would be that much better off.
  The second matter concerns housing benefit and the changes made in 1988. Other figures in the answer to which I have referred are also interesting. I asked how much of the income was spent on rent and poll tax. The percentage is considerable. Those on less than £60 a week pay 20 per cent. of that in rent and poll tax, and someone with less than £70 a week pays 24 per cent., or nearly a quarter. That increases the poverty and the hardship, and it is something that must be changed when a Labour Government come to office.
  The final point that I want to make is one that I have made repeatedly. It concerns the additional difficulties that those on low incomes experience during the winter months. In my view, the cold weather payment is inadequate. There ought to be a far more generous scheme. The payment is made only when the temperature falls to zero or below for seven consecutive days, and the amount is £5 a week.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): It is £6.
  Mr. Winnick: Yes, £6.
  But it is often very cold even when the temperature does not reach zero—as it is today. People on low incomes find

  541
  it even more difficult to make ends meet when they have to try to keep their accommodation warm. It is very warm in this Chamber, and Members of Parliament, when they go home, do not have any difficulties about heating, but how on earth is it possible for anyone on less than £60 or £70 a week to keep a home adequately heated? I am, of course, taking into account any heating additions to income support. How do such people, during the winter months, pay electricity bills and gas bills? It is understandable that pensioners, fearful of receiving heating bills that they could not possibly meet, ensure that they economise. Unfortunately, many of them put themselves in danger of hypothermia and other health risks.
  Figures and accusations have been bandied about today. I must be perfectly frank and say that I do not know whether a Labour Government could do everything that I should like done to relieve poverty. I shall not say that much of what I should like to see done could be done within the first few months, or even the first few years, of a Labour Government's term. However, my party is genuinely committed to trying to relieve the poverty that far too many people in this country are living in.
  We are not talking about a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand. That would be bad enough—indeed, with any of our fellow citizens in such a plight we should be concerned—but we are talking about literally millions of people. I do not believe that there is genuine commitment on the part of Conservatives to end poverty. They have none of the commitment that we have.
  If, when in office, a Labour Government are not doing as much as they should be, although I believe that they will take the right steps, there will be immense pressure from Labour Back Benchers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not apologise for saying that. I notice no such pressure from Tory Back Benchers on the Government, because, as I have said, they have no genuine commitment to ending the hardship and destitution which so many of our fellow citizens suffer. That is why we need a change of Government; we need a Labour Government, whenever the election is called, to try to sort out the difficulties that we have described tonight.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I welcome this debate because poverty can be a difficult issue to discuss. It is a great tribute to the Conservative party propaganda machine that poverty is not on the daily agenda and is not a matter of public outrage in every daily newspaper. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has some measures in mind to help free up the press in this country, which in turn will facilitate an open debate so that more and more people are made aware of the real causes of poverty.
  Poverty is not given the importance that it deserves. There are some disabling popular prejudices about it. For instance, it is always something that affects other people. It is barely talked about even by many of those whom it affects. A tremendous stigma attaches to it. People feel a sense of personal failing, of unworthiness and of isolation—even of resignation. They feel that there is nothing that they can do about it. All of that must change if this nation is to get the best from people and if people are to make the best of themselves.
  542
  As though all of that were not enough, there is also the crushing weight of deliberate Government policy to contend with. For the first time in modern British history we have had a Government who, as a central plank of policy, have actively encouraged a fundamental redistribution of wealth from those who do not have to those who have plenty. There are many pretty ways to express that, but the Conservative vision of society, even at its one-nation softest, always demands a broad class of the poor for its philosophy to work. In the past 13 years it has been clear that greater poverty would always accompany the experiment of monetarism, and that the fate of people at the bottom would always be a price well worth paying—provided that it was paid by someone else. We can only guess at the social costs—he personality deformities, the distrust, the desperation, the promotion of criminality, the personal and family stress and the results of that in terms of broken marriages, broken homes and broken lives. Although it is obvious even to advocates of monetarism that the experiment has failed, its consequences will be with many of our people for a long time and perhaps for the whole of their lives.
  In many ways the physical costs of poverty are easier to measure and thus easier to combat. We all know the problems of low pay. We know from statistics produced by the Low Pay Unit that the difference between people on the lowest and highest incomes is bigger now than it was in 1886. Many pensioners know that they cannot buy enough for their own needs. People on the state pension alone immediately fall below the poverty line and are eligible for income support, assuming that they claim it. Mothers know that child benefit was frozen, that the Government left it to wither on the vine for three years before they saw the election coming up. The list is a long one. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) described it earlier: maternity grant abolished, earnings-related additions phased out, special needs payments abolished, unemployment benefit cut in real terms, benefit withdrawn from 16 and 17-year-olds, benefit cut for 17 to 25-year-olds.
  Under the Conservative Government, the steady and deliberate creation of poverty has been endless—to the point at which one person in six lives below the official poverty line. That is the society that the Government have created and the situation that we shall need to terminate after we come before the electorate in the next few weeks. The electors will decide whether the society created by the Government, who did not even believe in society, must be changed. We certainly intend to change it.
  The redistribution of wealth has not been accidental. It has been calculated and callous, it has been paid for by people on or below average incomes, and it represents the most massive attempt at social engineering in this country this century.
  In the brief time that remains to me I shall outline one or two measures that we intend to take after 7 May. We shall have plenty of chances in the months and years ahead to right the wrongs of the Conservative Government. We shall start by implementing Labour's two pre-funded commitments. We shall immediately increase the pension for the single person by £5 and for the married couple by £8. Thereafter, we shall link increases in pensions to increases in earnings—the link that was so callously broken by the Conservatives in 1980. Ten million pensioners—[Interruption.] This is the bit that the

  543
  Conservatives do not like. Ten million pensioners—not the top I per cent., not the people on£70,000 per year—will benefit from Labour's proposals.
  We shall restore child benefit to the value that it had in 1987, making it £9.95 for every child, thereby ending the distinction between children in a family which means that some get more than others. That was a scandalous separation. This too will benefit not a handful of people on top tax rates but 7 million families.
  After 7 May, those who have been abused by the Government will start to find just a little of what they have lost being returned to them. It says a great deal about our values that we place pensioners and mothers and children at the very top of our agenda—even above many other vital priorities. It says a great deal about our values and principles that for their sake we will endure the lies and misrepresentations about our tax policy which is necessary to pay for these people's security and peace of mind.
  Mr.Newton rose—
  Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman will only take up his colleague's time, but I am pleased to giveway.
  Mr. Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman goes too much further with his rhetoric, does he realise that about £1 billion of the money to which he has just referred will go to those in the top half of income distribution?
  Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State should enjoy his last few weeks in office and not try to give us lectures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We shall get there in good time. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to lecture us on redistribution. As the Treasury's man in the Department of Social Security, he has presided over the transfer of£31 billion from pensioners' pockets to causes that the Government believe in. We will take no lectures from him about that.
  As resources permit, we shall introduce other measures to eliminate the list of poverty-creating Conservative measures. In addition to steps to alleviate direct poverty, we shall build pathways out of poverty across the whole range of Departments, including decent standards of training, better protection against discrimination, special attention to the needs of people with disabilities, improved statutory maternity protection, investment in child care facilities, and a vigorous campaign against the cheap "Arthur Daley" employers, spearheaded by the national minimum wage of £130 per week. It is clear from the reception of our plans by Members on the Government Benches that the policies are in place: in 14 weeks' time, so will be the people who will carry them out.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): We have been treated for the past few minutes to what I can only describe as Labour's "dodgers' charter". The remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) contained not one reply to the questions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about Labour's pledges and Labour's financing of the false manifesto of ideas that they claim represents their policy on social security.
  544
  I shall come to those because we have a proud track record in social security. Anybody who can stand at this Dispatch Box and talk of a budget of more than £60,000 million as our expenditure pledges on social security can point to real policies, serving real people, with real benefit, and giving real hope to those who need our social security system. To hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, North talk about child benefit in a year when we have announced three increases in child benefit beggars description.
  I remind the hon. Member that I said to him in Committee, when he led the charge by recommending that he and his hon. Friends vote against our regulations on income support, that it was his party which voted against the increase in child benefit in October reaching all children in the country; it was his party which voted against our proposals to enable family credit to reach up to 65,000 additional people; it was his party that voted against our proposals to extend the carer premium—all of that from the party that says it cares. It is on the record. Hon. Members know the people they voted against—yet they have the audacity to stand here today and tell us that their priority is the children.
  Labour Members have tried to give us some lessons about our taxation policy. I will put one particular figure to the House.
  Mr. Ronnie CampbellWhere is the poll tax?
  Mr. Jack: It is in the pockets of Labour Members who will not pay.
  Since we brought in our reductions in higher rate taxes which so disappoint the party opposite, the proportion of Inland Revenue income from that group has risen to more than a third of total tax take. The Opposition have not learnt the simple lesson—reduce the price and increase the tax revenue—that enables us to increase our income and our spending on social security. It is a very simple point.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put a number of questions to the hon. Member for Oldham, West today. I should not like to be in the hon. Gentleman's shoes as he sits by his telephone in Oldham this weekend waiting for his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to ring and ask about the latest list of so-called pledges. I will give him an opportunity, because I am a fair person. In his remarks, the hon. Gentleman attacked our proposals and our thoughts on income support levels, he attacked the social fund, and he attacked the payment of half mortgage interest for the first 16 weeks. I invite him now to rise and tell the House what he would do, where the money would come from and when he would implement it. I will give way to him now if he would like to do that.
  There is an ominous silence—
  Mr. Allen rose—
  Mr. Jack: I did not ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.
  He had his opportunity, but he did not answer the questions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West failed to answer, so we know that, like all the other so-called pledges, his proposals are the confetti of persuasion, sprinkled with gay abandon around the meeting halls of the country in the hope of getting people to believe that

  545
  Labour is the party of social security. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is playing fast and loose with the public's expectations and they will find him out.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the way the national insurance system works. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is still trying to persuade other hon. Members and the public that anyone earning less than £20,280 a year will not be touched by his pickpocket approach to financing. He asked us to provide some examples and I will try to assist him.
  The first example is that of a computer salesman on basic pay of some £12,000 a year topped up by, say, £5,000 commission on his monthly salary during the year. He would pay an extra £4.45 per week under Labour's proposals. A process and production engineer, and there are some of those in Oldham, on a gross salary of £19,926, including—the hon. Member will not like this—£6,000 of profit-related pay, would pay an extra £8.55 per week in national insurance payments under Labour's proposals. As for good old overtime, the hon. Member may say that not much overtime is being worked at the moment, but for those who we know will be on overtime when the economic recovery comes a person on £17,492 with overtime payments of £3,734 in any one year would find himself £2.12 per week worse off. Can the hon. Member for Oldham, West stand up now and deny those are real-world examples of people who will be worse off under Labour? I invite him to repudiate that.
  Mr. Joe Ashton rose—
  Mr. Jack: I will resist. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has not taken part in the debate and I still have much information to give.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West tried to suggest, in his new-found enthusiasm for Europe, that everything across the channel was absolutely wonderful. He pointed out to us that other people were doing so much better. I suggest that he goes on a little trip and visits his Dutch colleagues in their Government. He will find that the Dutch are discovering that their budget deficit, directly related to their spending on social security, will require to be cut back. They are ending the earnings-related part of their social security just as the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friends will know, is introducing that feature into his social security plans. Belgium is worried. Germany is facing greater social security problems than Denmark and even France. If the hon. Gentleman will go and see for himself, he will find that other European countries are waking up to this problem.
  If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, let him go to the Library of the House and consult the Financial Times of 11 January, in which Mr. Harry Riley says:
  "Upgrading state pensions would be one of the immediate priorities of a Labour regime in the UK, but all over Europe other governments are searching for ways of reducing their pension commitments."
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend before him realised in 1986, as his predecessors had also realised, that there was a need in our social security system to direct money to those who most needed it and to make certain that our social security policies were affordable by the nation. We took that difficult decision, we introduced those reforms and we have modernised the delivery of our social security system
  546
  with one of the most modern computer systems in Europe, all to make certain that the right amount of help with benefits such as family credit, our improved premium in income support for the elderly, the 152 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on the disabled, could reach the people it needed to, and above all be afforded by the tax and national insurance payers who have to foot the bill.
  It is absolutely clear now that the hon. Member for Oldham, West does not care a jot about those who have to pay and that he has learnt nothing from what has actually happened in Europe.
  Mr. Allen rose—
  Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my speech. He has had his say.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West made about 56 pledges on social security but he did not guarantee that they would be implemented on day one of an incoming Labour Government. He has engaged in mythology and has not said where the money will come from. The shambles of Labour's tax and national insurance proposals clearly shows that the two so-called firm pledges and the other 50-odd are not worth any of the reams of paper on which they are written.
  Much has been said about pensioners. The Opposition do not like it when we proudly boast that pensioners' average total net incomes increased by 34 per cent. between 1979 and 1988. They do not like it when we say that average incomes for occupational pensioners virtually doubled in the same period. They certainly do not like it when they see that the wealth-creating society over which we have presided has ensured that 46 per cent. of pensioners have their own homes.
  We know that some pensioners need less help from the social security system than others and we have taken steps to ensure that the money goes to those most in need. In outlining his four case studies, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked whether we could offer some hope to his constituents. I offer a message of hope not only to his constituents but to the many thousands of people who, through family credit, enable the social security system to be a creative organ.
  Since family credit was introduced we have made almost 2.5 million successful awards. Some 352,000 people currently benefit from an average payment of about £30 a week. From 1 April we plan to enable more than 65,000 more people to have family credit. That offers real hope and is an example of our innovative, affordable and honest approach to social security, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 246.

  Divison No. 53]

  align="right">[7.01 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Bellotti, David

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blunkett, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  547

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carr, Michael

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Cartwright, John

  Lambie, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clelland, David

  Leighton, Ron

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKelvey, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

  Darling, Alistair

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dobson, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Enright, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Parry, Robert

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Prescott, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gordon, Mildred

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gould, Bryan

  Radice, Giles

  Graham, Thomas

  Randall, Stuart

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Redmond, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Reid, Dr John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Robertson, George

  Hain, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Rogers, Allan

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Haynes, Frank

  Rooney, Terence

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hinchliffe, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Short, Clare

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Snape, Peter

  548

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Stephen, Nicol

  Wilson, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Turner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Vaz, Keith

  Walley, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Allason, Rupert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Farr, Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkins, Robert

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fry, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gale, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Benyon, W.

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hague, William

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hannam, Sir John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

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

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

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

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Kilfedder, James

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, David

  549

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Latham, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Page, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Paice, James

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Lord, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Pawsey, James

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Madel, David

  Price, Sir David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Raffan, Keith

  Mans, Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Maples, John

  Redwood, John

  Marland, Paul

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Riddick, Graham

  Mates, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Rost, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rowe, Andrew

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mudd, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Shersby, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  550

  Speed, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Thorne, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Squire, Robin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stokes, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sumberg, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House warmly endorses the Government's policies for focusing considerable extra help on the most vulnerable in society; welcomes the further real increases in benefits shortly to take place for many older less well off pensioners and hundreds of thousands of disabled people; notes the Social Security Select Committee's conclusion that real disposable incomes grew by 30 per cent between 1979 and 1988 with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale; believes that policies which provide more choice and greater opportunities are the best way of helping people to create a better life for themselves and their families; and recognises that, if implemented,
  Her Majesty's Opposition's confused tax and spending plans would impoverish the whole nation, increase unemployment and destroy opportunities.

Ravenscraig
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We now come to the debate on Ravenscraig. Time is limited. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I appeal for short speeches. I should also inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the Government amendment.
7.14 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the repeated in defiance of guarantees given by the company; calls for British Steel to honour these guarantees and for the failure of British Steel to support and invest in its Scottish plants, culminating in the announcement that Ravenscraig is to close Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland, including the search for a new owner and the use of new technology; deplores the inadequate response from Ministers to the present crisis; and demands a co-ordinated and determined drive to rebuild the Lanarkshire economy which has been cruelly damaged by the policies of both the Government and British Steel.
This debate is about a great industry and the trouble which has befallen it. Inevitably much of the spotlight will fall on the role of Government. I suspect that the Secretary of State is in difficulty and is embarrassed by his predicament. Well he might be.
At the end of last week, as the right hon. Gentleman may know, I put down a priority written question. It was a simple request for a list of dates of any meetings in the last six months between Ministers in the Scottish Office and British Steel. The list could not be long, and it did not require an extensive diary search. The first effort at a reply was:
"I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."
Clearly the Secretary of State had no great interest in getting the information on the table. However, he may have had a tactical rethink, because today there crept on to the board a reply. It was the reply which I had expected. In the last six months, the entire contact at ministerial level between British Steel and the Scottish Office boiled down to one meeting on 6 January, after the Government knew that the closure decision had been reached.
According to reports in the Sunday Mail, the Scottish Office knew as early as 20 December that closure was coming on 8 January. It is a serious charge, but I fear that, as Ministers contemplated the grim future, their one thought was how best to survive the fine mess that their own incompetence had created.
So far as I can find out, the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing to influence events. I am strengthened in that conclusion by a letter which the Secretary of State wrote to me on 14 January, in which he told me precisely what happened at the meeting on 6 January. I remind the House that that was the one meeting at ministerial level with British Steel in the last six months. What happened at the meeting was that he
"pressed Sir Robert very hard indeed to make public British Steel's assessment of market conditions".
Faced with the final blow, with the long history of decline, and with the abdication of duty which has marked their course, the Government finally got into the presence of top management of British Steel, merely to press Sir Robert to make public the market assessment which had made him decide on closure. That is a fit comment on the total lack of action and the lack of fight shown by the Scottish Office over the years.
552
That is typical of the hands-off, do-nothing approach which has been the hallmark of the Government. Successive Secretaries of State have been licensed to protest carefully packaged concern for Scottish consumption only. The one condition laid down was that no action was to follow and no real pressure was to be mounted on British Steel.
Mr. John Marshall: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what action he would take? When the Labour party refers in the motion to
"every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland, including the search for a new owner",
does that mean that he would propose the nationalisation of Ravenscraig?
Mr. Dewar: I genuinely regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. As he well knows, that will be the burden of the main part of my speech. He has an important role as a substitute Scot on this occasion. I hope that he will stay, listen and learn.
Suspicion of the Government's plans and of their attitude became a certainty when the Department of Trade and Industry finally blew their cover. Perhaps I do not recognise an unsuspected luminary, but I do not think that there is a representative of the DTI here. I remind the House that the DTI is supposed to be the lead Department in this business. That absence is therefore the height of discourtesy.[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) likes to run everything, but so far as I know, he is not yet running the Department of Trade and Industry. He may be omni competent in the Scottish Office but, so far as I know, he has not yet got beyond the Scottish Office.
When we saw the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), he was disastrously frank. I recall it because it made such an impression on me. He said that he was doing nothing to help, because the Scottish Office had not asked him to do anything. The harsh truth is that there has been no real attempt to derail British Steel's plans. The search has always been for a face-saving formula, never for a solution.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No.
Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman would nationalise the industry.
Mr. Dewar: I shall deal later with the hon. Gentleman's point.
What can now be done? There has been a long campaign to try to persuade British Steel to consider offers for the Ravenscraig plant. British Steel now says that it will do so, but I fear, because one has to face reality, that it has probably agreed to consider offers because it is confident that offers will not be forthcoming. The tragedy is that, when there was an opportunity to find a buyer, it was fiercely obstructed by British Steel. The Secretary of State for Scotland lamented that fact before the Select Committee but, as far as I can determine, he did nothing to unblock the logjam. The option of a new owner should be kept on the agenda for as long as possible.
The possibility of new technology must also be examined urgently. It was identified as a possibility—not, I admit, as a strong possibility—in the Arthur D. Little

553
report. I know that it is still being investigated by Scottish Enterprise. Many of those who have followed the argument will be familiar with the innovative proposal that has been put forward. It contemplates the linking of thin slab casting to traditional steelmaking techniques. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), showing more energy and determination than any Minister, is going to Indiana in the next week or so to look at one of the plants where thin slab casting is in operation. I do not pretend that it is an easy option, but it must be pursued to find out whether there is any possible way forward.
Dalzell is still producing plate. As everyone connected with the plant knows, the Labour party has always maintained that there is a case for investment there, and it has consistently challenged the single plate mill strategy. It is not in the best interests of the industry. In our view, it was always likely to be bad news for Dalzell. Sadly, that was almost borne out.
Circumstances have changed. The recession has undermined the plan for a new plate mill on Teesside. The Government should be pressing for the modernisation of Dalzell, including the installation of accelerated cooling. It still remains a low-cost option. In hard times, it must be attractive to British Steel.
There are no short cuts, however. This is a time for realism. I want to make it clear, as I have done in the past, to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that we do not believe that nationalisation is the answer in this case. If I believed that it was, I should be arguing for it.
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No.
Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman will not give way.
Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman is expressing surprise at what I have just said, it shows that he is abysmally ignorant of the debate.
Mr.Oppenheim rose—
Mr.Brown rose—
Mr. Dewar: Let me again make the point that we do not believe that in the current circumstances nationalisation is an option or a way out for British Steel. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) can understand and digest that statement, we can come back to it.
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No. I believe that nationalisation is no more than a slogan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in these circumstances. It is a doubtful luxury, available only to a party with no expectation of gaining power. I say that honestly. It is irresponsible to consider nationalising the industry; it would hold out hope where none exists. The arguments do not stand up. I repeat that, if I thought they did, I should argue for nationalisation. It is not a matter
554
of dogma; it is a matter of doing what is right for the steel industry and for the people of Lanarkshire who have taken such a pounding.
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No.
Mr.Oppenheim rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Dewar: The nationalists want Ravenscraig to operate—hon. Members will correct me when they speak if they believe that I have got the detail wrong—on two blast furnaces, tied to the Dalzell plate production, with a pipe mill on an unnamed Motherwell site. The problem is the market.
Dalzell, expanded to 1 million tonnes—two or three times current output—could survive only on the assumption that British Steel was not competing in the market. Plans for a new plant at Teesside would have to be abandoned. Plate production at Scunthorpe would have to be closed, together with the welded pipe mill facilities at Hartlepool. Ironically, the whole scheme would depend for its viability on British Steel's acquiescence.
There is no escape in myth-making about the North sea market. Every authoritative commentary tells the same story. Structural steel, tubes and plates for the North sea are not required in sufficient quantities to breathe life into the SNP headlines. All the signs are that the market will fall sharply over the next few years. It is—to use a perhaps unhappy phrase—no more than a nationalist pipe dream.
This is not a plan to rescue Ravenscraig. It would be left as a slab producer, in effect tied to one outlet. If it runs on one blast furnace and produces 1 million tonnes, the cost base will be wrong. If it loads effectively at 2 million tonnes, there will be a surplus for which there is no demand. The European hurdle on competition policy would be formidable. An operating subsidy would simply not be available.
I say all that with no pleasure, but I do so because I am not prepared to be dishonest and go down a road that I do not believe is open. The SNP claimed initially that its target was the restoration of Ravenscraig, complete with a hot mill, cold reduction plant, relined blast furnaces and much work done to such facilities as the coke ovens.
In order to discredit the pointed attack, on grounds of cost, by the Ravenscraig stewards, the SNP has been reduced to confusing market capitalisation with British Steel's asset value—as it does in the most blatant way in this pamphlet that I am holding. It is nonsense to pretend that the share capitalisation of the company is relevant to the argument in favour of putting plant on the ground. It is a deliberate attempt to falsify the argument, and suggests a certain desperation. The back-up has been to dispute the integrity of the stewards whom they were once proud to praise and who are universally seen as having fought a sustained and courageous campaign in defence of the steel industry.
The SNP once did a lot of running in and out on Scottish industrial matters, including nationalisation. I remember when the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry was on the agenda. SNP Members sat in the Chamber tearing up telegrams from the work force on the grounds that they did not believe in that particular form. The scheme that has now been produced has changed shape and content several times.

555
It is worth remembering that there is no provision for this adventure in the ingenious sums cobbled together by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to form his so-called Scottish Budget. The scheme has only one essential virtue for the nationalists: it gives them something to say.
The debate takes place on the day that The Sun has declared itself the house journal of the SNP. I fear, although I may be a little over-confident, that that will turn out to be something of an embarrassment to the party. In the context of this debate, the party might care to remember that, on 9 January, The Sun considered the future of the steel industry and claimed that that particularly misbegotten group of men, the socialists, could
"only throw money at problems."
It went on to pronounce:
"Sure, 12 hundred jobs could be saved at Ravenscraig. But in the end the price would be the loss of ten times as many jobs elsewhere."
The Sun's principal columnist happily contributed the thought.
"Ravenscraig should have been shut down years ago."
All that I can say about The Sun and the company that it is now keeping is that, if it is a conversion, it is not one based upon principled conviction. I predict that the future of that misalliance will be private grief for the SNP.
We must look to the future. There is much that must be done to rebuild and strengthen the Lanarkshire economy. Although I can only sketch what needs to be done, I shall try to state what I believe are the most important points. The sites must be dealt with and reclaimed. It is no use the Government paying lip service to the principle that the polluter pays when the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 13 January, as though it was good news, that British Steel would clear the Ravenscraig site
"down to ground level and … leave it in a tidy condition".—[Official Report, 13 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 672.]
The Government must not be allowed to cover their retreat with a handful of grass seed.
I believe that the enterprise zone was scrambled into the frame only when the closure announcement loomed. The Sunday Mail reported that the Scottish Office had indeed been pushing for that, and that there would be £100 million of investment, but that has now been reduced to £50 million.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I shall correct that mistake from the hon. Gentleman now, but I shall deal with some of the others later. That is entirely and absolutely without foundation
Mr. Dewar: Of course I take the Secretary of State's word for that. It was not scrambled quickly into the frame when the announcement of the closure was known. However, I understand from a press release from Sir Leon Brittan's office, which reached me today, that a formal application under article 93.3 of the treaty was launched only today. That does not suggest that there has been a great deal of forethought or planning.
I am conscious of the difficulties that may arise. I understand the problem over the Mossend freight village and terminal. There are always difficulties over the boundaries of enterprise zones. However, I think that, on balance, that is an important part of the package, and something on which we expect the Secretary of State to
556
deliver. The package that the Government have put together lacks coherence and shape. It is a case of anything and everything being thrown together. Significant sums would have been available in any event. I refer to Lanarkshire development agency's and East Kilbride development corporation's contributions.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to listen to the local community and that he will create some sort of forum in which the ideas of the local community can be taken into account and considered in a wider way than has been possible up to now. It is important that emphasis be placed on infrastructure improvements, and especially on the M74 and M8 link.
Lanarkshire does not want a series of reports on infrastructure questions—a buck-passing exercise to a regional council that does not have the finance. We must capitalise and have a targeted strategy to encourage development around the freight terminal and the new electrified line linking Motherwell to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I hope that that will be tackled with more energy than hitherto.
There must be a real drive to improve training and to encourage innovation. The Government should consider the possibility of establishing a central institution of Lanarkshire to give a new impetus to the excellent work that is carried out by the existing colleges there. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) will have a word or two to say about training towards the end of the debate. The experience and expertise of East Kilbride development corporation's industrial team should be kept together.
The Labour party has argued for a Scottish innovation centre. There are many examples of similar successful ventures in Europe, some of which have an almost international reputation, such as the Steinhers Foundation in Baden-Württemberg. Such a venture would give a boost to the local economy and allow companies to plug into a Europewide network of technology transfer so that even the smallest firms would have access to the best of the world's technologies and to the expertise that would allow them to put that technology to work. It would offer positive support on production methods and marketing. It should be based in Lanarkshire, complementing the work already carried out at the National Engineering Laboratory in East Kilbride.
I finish—
Mr. Oppenheim rose—
Mr. Dewar: No.
Mr.Oppenheim rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr.Oppenheim rose—
Mr. Dewar: No. I appreciate—
Mr. OppenheimWhat a pathetic performance.
Mr. Dewar: I should like to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am conscious of the fact that, although very few Conservative Members will seek to participate in the debate—and certainly very few from Scotland—many hon. Members have constituency interests and want to participate.
There can be no promises of an overnight transformation. The Government's dereliction of duty has

557
contributed to a major crisis. I refer to their failure to challenge British Steel at a time when such a challenge would have had an impact, and to the ravages of a recession that was made, at least in part, in Downing street.
We argued for a DTI task force, and found no sign of life. We pushed for an export drive, but got no reaction. We looked for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but got no co-operation. There has been no attempt to force British Steel to honour its guarantees at a time when the market was more optimistic and there was the possibility of new owners.
The Secretary of State will claim that everything possible is being done that could be done, but that is simply not true. Promises and expressions of concern there are in plenty, but what is missing is the commitment and determination to fight unemployment and industrial decline. We have had soothing words from the Secretary of State. Suggestions that unemployment in Lanarkshire is not as bad as it might be add insult to injury. A male unemployment rate of 16 per cent. is no justification for the kind of complacency that we have seen in recent months. There has been one meeting—after the event—with British Steel in six months.
The charge remains—not that Ministers have failed, but that they have never really tried. Their record of inactivity strips them of all credibility. The Secretary of State can hardly complain if he and his colleagues are not trusted by the people of Lanarkshire and of Scotland. This Government should go, and surely will, whether it he in April or May. There will he no reprieve—and neither should there be.
7.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr.Ianang):I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"commends the Government's response to the announcement by British Steel of its decision to close Ravenscraig; acknowledges the extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, the Lanarkshire Development Agency, and a range of other public and private bodies; welcomes the Government's commitment of some £120 million since the beginning of March 1991 for economic development and training in Lanarkshire; and supports the proposal by Her Majesty's Government that an enterprise zone be established in North Lanarkshire."
The kindest thing that could be said about the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is that he must have been fazed and thrown by the extraordinarily good news of the winning of the contract for three frigates by Yarrow in his constituency. What a pity that he did not find it possible even to express his appreciation for that. Instead, he spoke in a wholly sniping, dull and negative way to a motion that is wholly negative. He did a considerable discourtesy to the House in failing to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), formerly the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, who has direct and close experience of the steel industry. My hon. Friend said that he was surprised by that. Of course he was, because the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) gave a firm commitment to the House—admittedly four years ago,
558
which is probably a long time in the life of the Labour party. He said that Opposition Members "strongly believe"—not just "believe"—that
"the steel industry is most appropriately owned in a form of public ownership."—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 184.]
Therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes read the Opposition's motion, which states:
"That this House … calls … for the Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland",
he clearly thought that "every possible means" would include nationalisation. However, it turns out that that phrase not only does not include nationalisation but that nationalisation is "no more than a slogan".
Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may recall that I served on Standing Committee D in the 1987–88 Session. Having listened on many occasions to the then Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as well as to the hon. Member for Dagenham, I can confirm that we heard a commitment to renationalise the steel industry at virtually every Standing Committee sitting. As a member of that Standing Committee, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend is correct.
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and hope that there will be time in the debate for the House to benefit from his experience.
The tone of the Opposition's motion is without doubt interventionist, dirigiste, and very much in the mould of the old Labour party, calling
"for the Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry in Scotland".
Indeed,
"it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs. What the steel industry needs is a more vibrant domestic market, specially in the manufacturing sector and a chance therefore to make even further increases in their productivity and be more competitive in difficult international markets."
The industry does not need
"some civil servant or minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do".
That is what I believe. It is also what the Leader of the Opposition believes. Those were not my words but his words from today's Financial Times. He said:
"it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs … some civil servant or Minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do."
That quotation clearly puts the House in great difficulty. It discredits and disqualifies about 90 per cent. of what the hon. Member for Garscadden just said. But the position becomes more confusing. The interventionist motion tabled today calling
"for the Government to explore with determination every possible means of saving the steel industry"
bears the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Yet the article appeared in the Financial Times today with a quotation in inverted commas which gives the directly opposite view. Which is the view of the Leader of the Opposition—let alone that of the Labour party?
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State realise that this fourth form debating stuff is neither funny nor smart and impresses no one back in Scotland? Will he concentrate on what the Government can do in their dying moments for the steel industry in Scotland and for the people of Motherwell?
Mr. Lang: I just wish that someone on the Opposition Benches could help us. Perhaps next week at Luigi's the Leader of the Opposition will manage to extricate himself from the spaghetti in which he is entangled.
Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State has been adamant that Government intervention and attempts to influence these matters are wrong as a matter of principle. Does he remember when his immediate predecessor as Secretary of State for Scotland said that the decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig was wrong and should be reviewed and reversed, and that his policy was to achieve that? Did the right hon. Gentleman support that?
Mr. Lang: Of course I did. I should have liked to see it happen. However, I do not believe in intervening in the steel industry to do it; nor do I believe that the Labour party believes in that. Certainly, its leader does not believe in it. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a Welsh interest to protect. Perhaps it is asking too much to expect him to rise above the Welsh interest and look to the Scottish, let alone the United Kingdom, interest.
The Labour party must be in a great shambles when we hear that nationalisation is no more than a slogan and that the entire history of the Labour party's commitment to nationalisation not only of the steel industry but across the board is abandoned. The Leader of the Opposition says:
"it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs … some civil servant or Minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do."
I am grateful to the Labour party for calling the debate tonight, even though it is a half-day debate on a Thursday, so that we could obtain that revelation about its policy on nationalisation.
I want to make a little progress on the positive measures that the Government are taking to meet the difficulties that Lanarkshire faces. It is important that we recognise the position as it has developed. When we came to office in 1979 we found an industry which was over-manned, under-invested, uncompetitive and riven with industrial dispute. Funds were being poured into it by the taxpayer at the rate of £100 million a month at today's prices. That not only failed to solve the steel industry's problems but damaged the interests of the taxpayer, other industry and the economy in general.
Some contraction was inevitable with the industry in such a state. It would not be particularly rewarding to reflect on how or why the Ravenscraig problems developed—whether the cause was the original decision of the Conservative Government to encourage the industry to locate the mill at Ravenscraig, the decision to split the effort between Scotland and Wales, the location 40 miles from the sea, the separation from the cold strip mill or the loss of Linwood. At Linwood industrial disputes eventually destroyed one of the major markets for its product, just as they destroyed many of the shipyards on the upper Clyde. We could reflect on whether nationalisation destroyed the old Scottish companies by moving their control to London and creating such a mess that it was impossible to reprivatise them on a Scottish basis.
The Labour party owes it to the House to tell us even now what it would do. We have heard what it would not do, but it must tell us what it would do if it were to win the election. It may find itself in office with four or five months
560
to go. If it does, it will owe it to the people of Scotland to tell them what it will do. We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Garscadden.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State telling the people of Scotland that they will need to wait almost 10 years, as the people of Linwood had to wait, to see anything come into that massive empty factory space? Surely the Secretary of State has more to offer the people in Lanarkshire than he offered the people of enfrewshire—nothing.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a well-timed intervention which enables me to describe the initiatives which we are taking, have taken and will continue to take.
Mr. Oppenheim: Surely it would be within the power of the Opposition spokesman, should he ever become Secretary of State for Scotland, to take powers to insist that Ravenscraig should remain open. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Garscadden is so unwilling to make that pledge?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish that I knew. Some two and a quarter hours of the debate remain and I hope that the Labour party will make its position clear as the debate advances.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I entirely share the general disappointment and dismay at the effect of the loss of jobs in Lanarkshire as a result of the closure of Ravenscraig. But what matters is action, not words, and it is action that the Government have been taking.
Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend knows that I have many thousands of constituents who have brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers who live in the Motherwell area and are involved with Ravenscraig. He will also be aware of the massive assistance that the Government granted to my constituency by creating the enterprise zone, by granting assisted area status, by a massive infusion of derelict land grants and of money for new roads and infrastructure, through European grants. They made available many millions of pounds for retraining and so on. My constituents in Corby would like to hear from my right hon. Friend that the same range of incentives will be made available to Motherwell.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, speaks with direct and substantial personal experience of the beneficial effects of the Government's measures. He knows the benefits that will flow from the Government's measures in Lanarkshire.
We are making good progress in providing assistance for Lanarkshire. Our plans are going forward in a businesslike and sensible way. As soon as we heard that the closure of Ravenscraig was to be announced, we accelerated the consideration, already well advanced, of the case for an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire. The Government quickly concluded that the case for such a zone was strong. I announced our intention to seek EC approval for the establishment of the zone on the day that the closure was announced.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) challenged the Prime Minister. He said that there was good information that the Prime Minister knew about the

561
closure of Ravenscraig 14 days before the announcement. How many days before the announcement was the Secretary of State told about the closure?
Mr. Lang: I will not answer for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I heard about the closure on 20 December. I made that clear as soon as the announcement took place. There is no great mystery about that.
Mr. Gordon Brown: What did the Secretary of State do about it?
Mr. Lang: I advanced consideration of our preparation of our application for enterprise zone status and I persuaded my Government colleagues that that was a desirable step forward. On the day of the announcement I was able to write to Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner, to alert him to the fact that the United Kingdom Government would seek the Commission's agreement to the establishment of such a zone.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr.Lang: No, if the hon. Lady will allow me, I must make progress. I will give way to her later.
Mrs. Ewing: My point is about the enterprise zone.
Mr. Lang: Let me first say what I have to say about the enterprise zone. I will then give way to the hon. Lady if she still feels that it is necessary.
I spoke to Commissioner Brittan yesterday and I am pleased to confirm that formal notification of the Government's case for an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire was made to the Secretary-General of the European Commission this morning. I know that the Labour party does not understand much about enterprise zones—after all, they were created by the Government—but they involve an enormous amount of preparation. That preparation has been carried out extremely thoroughly. When asked yesterday whether he thought that he had been informed of our intention at an adequate time, Commissioner Brittan replied that he considered it "pretty prompt". He added:
"Time spent in preparing well prepared applications is not prevarication or time wasted … Time spent now in amassing detail could save time in the long run."
Mrs. Ewing: Although I do not wish to interfere in the argument about which of the Front-Bench spokesmen could more speedily achieve an enterprise zone, I believe that they should be fighting for the retention and expansion of the Scottish steel industry. Is it true that the condition that there will be no steel-making capacity in Lanarkshire will be attached to enterprise zone status?
Mr.Lang: That is the first time that I have heard the suggestion. It is highly unlikely. However, it is for the Commission to pursue and develop any conditions that it thinks appropriate.
I believe that our case is strong and that the zone will be of great help to north Lanarkshire, attracting many thousands of new jobs in a range of companies, thus broadening Lanarkshire's economic base.
I can also announce that I have approved the commissioning by Lanarkshire development agency of a consultancy study of the long-term economic development
562
opportunities, to follow on from the immediate work in hand arising from the Lanarkshire working group's report.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's courtesy in giving way. I sincerely hope for the sake of the people of north Lanarkshire that the enterprise zone which is to be created there is given far more financial and other support by the Government than was the case with the Inverclyde enterprise zone. That so-called enterprise zone has proved to be a bitter disappointment and failure for thousands of my constituents who are unemployed.
Mr. Lang: While the Inverclyde enterprise zone has not yet made a substantial breakthrough because of the difficult circumstances in which it operates, it substantially enhances the opportunity to bring employment to Inverclyde. The hon. Gentleman was keen enough for it to be established. The Government were glad to he able to secure that for him and I should have thought that it was in our interests for both of us to work together to make it a success.
The resources and investment by Government in an enterprise zone take the form of income forgone, in terms of capital allowances, exemption from rates and other benefits. The estimated costs to the Exchequer from the enterprise zone in Lanarkshire are about £50.5 million, which is expected to trigger about £250 million of private sector investment and to create a substantial number of jobs.
Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Secretary of State would write to me, as I am interested in his remarks. The basis upon which that figure has been arrived at means that he must be able to calculate the revenue loss, which presumably means that he has made assumptions about the size and occupation of the zone. Would he be prepared to put those calculations in the Library?
Mr. Lang: I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman whatever information is available to the Government, but when one sets up an enterprise zone, one does not know the nature of the employment which will come into different parts of it. The zone is based on six areas, which add up to almost 500 acres. The Government's experience and estimates have been carefully negotiated and calculated as accurately as possible, and they are based on our experience in other enterprise zones and upon expected take-up of opportunities there.
Today I wrote to Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, to say once again that he should release sufficient evidence about the world domestic market situation in the steel industry and about Ravenscraig's costs and other circumstances to shed light on the factors which led the British Steel board to take its decision.
I pressed British Steel to help deal with decontamination of the Ravenscraig site and its restoration to industrial or other use by granting Lanarkshire development agency immediate access to site records and by funding and other support for a site assessment to gauge which parts of the site could be quickly redeveloped and which need special or prolonged remedial treatment.
I have further suggested that British Steel might wish to enter into early discussions with the public agencies involved about the future of buildings on the site and

563
about future site ownership and development, aimed at making the most of potential public and private sector contributions.
I pressed Sir Robert to say by how much the funding of the British steel industry will increase to take account of 1,200 additional job losses since its £10 million programme was announced in north Lanarkshire last June. I emphasised the importance of training measures, as they would give much valued flexibility in tailoring training and retraining to meet likely future needs.
During the past decade, in a sustained and systematic way, the Government have developed a programme to help Lanarkshire. The House will be familiar with the Motherwell project, which has run for about eight years, in which the Scottish Development Agency had invested about £56 million by 1987. That project is estimated to have created or saved about 4,000 jobs. The partnership and commitment to Motherwell established by the project is being maintained through the Motherwell enterprise partnership, led by Motherwell Enterprise Development Co., which had a budget of £930,000 last year.
There is also the Coatbridge project, which ran from 1983 to 1988, in which SDA expenditure totalled £22.8 million—a project judged to have created or safeguarded about 2,500 jobs. A number of enterprise trusts are operating, many initially 20 per cent. funded by the SDA, which now deliver services under contract to the Lanarkshire development agency.
Last year, in response to the developing situation, I set up a working group under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary —my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—to review Lanarkshire's immediate needs and to develop projects. That was an immensely successful initiative, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am grateful also to the many public sector individuals and bodies which came willingly and co-operatively together to develop effectively the sort of plans which are now being implemented—16 early action
projects—
Mr. Adam Ingram: On East Kilbride development corporation—
Mr.Lang: I have not come to East Kilbride development corporation yet. If I have time, I shall do so.
Sixteen early action projects—mostly industrial site developments—were identified and work has already begun upon 13 of them; two more medium-term projects are moving ahead; and five others are subject to feasibility studies.
The remedial measures range across a wide spectrum of commitment in terms of finance and skill. Lanarkshire development agency had a basic budget of almost £3 million last year, to which was added an additional £15 million allocation, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May, and a further —4 million allocation for extra training. Scottish Enterprise was allocated about £5 million for use in Lanarkshire in 199–92. Those resources were used by the SDA largely to develop sites purchased by the SDA in March 1991. Further resources, amounting to about £1 million, were put into employment action and training programmes.
East Kilbride development corporation's capital programme for the year in question was about £26 million.
564
In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry, under the iron and steel employers re-adaptation benefit scheme for 1991–92, expected to spend about £28 million. The capital allocations to local authorities for factory building were set at £4 million, to enable a response to be made to the needs of the area.
Mr. Ingram: Hon. Members will recognise the importnt role that East Kilbride development corporation has played in the regeneration of the economy of Lanarkshire and Scotland and the role that it will play in the years ahead. Why is the Secretary of State proposing to wind up the development corporation within the next four years?
Mr. Lang: Such is the success of East Kilbride that it has reached a level of maturity where it no longer needs the special commitment of resources—which might be better used in other parts in Lanarkshire—to maintain and continue its development. East Kilbridge development corporation has handled its opportunities extremely well and has succeeded in attracting about one in five of all inward investment cases coming to Scotland. That, too, is for the benefit of Lanarkshire.
Lanarkshire has important advantages—it is well-located, with good communications, and the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that those are improved. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed the decision by British Rail to locate its Mossend channel tunnel freight terminal in Lanarkshire. Considerable benefits will flow from that. The Government have also substantially expanded the roads programme to take special account of the needs of Lanarkshire with regard to the M8 and A8 and—most important of all—the improvement of the A74, which is being developed into a motorway.
The Government have a sustained, well considered and broad-ranging commitment to Lanarkshire. We are implementing policies that have proved effective and successful in Brigg and Scunthorpe, Corby and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Lanarkshire has got advantages and we are doing our best to help the people there to capitalise upon them.
Our amendment to the motion describes the
"extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire".
I urge the House to reject the motion and to conceal it from the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition, who signed it. Instead, the House should endorse the words of the right hon. Gentleman which appeared in the Financial Times today, and support the Government's amendment.
8 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: For the people of Motherwell, and for Ravenscraig steel workers and their families, this is a sad occasion. They have worked hard and loyally, they have learnt new skills, developed new methods, pioneered new technologies and triumphed over disasters. They have acted intelligently, with foresight, courage and integrity. They have achieved unequalled levels of performance.
Steel is the most dramatic of industries, but it is not an industry for drama. It is an industry for steady, careful, considered judgment, because a worker's life and those of his work mates depend upon what he does. Because the
steel workers have felt, worked and argued their case in

565
that steady way—not just for our own interests as a steel community, but for the public who invested in the plant, for the customer and for the end consumer—they have seen the direction in which British Steel was taking us since the closure of Gartcosh in 1985, and even before that. It has been a long planned closure and now the workers have been told that British Steel is planning, finally, to close the works in September.
On Second Reading of the British Steel Bill in February 1988 I pointed out the likelihood that the privatisation of British Steel as a monopoly producer in the United Kingdom would lead to the closure of Ravenscraig, as British Steel exerted its unfettered monopolistic power to restrict capacity. I argued how a competitive solution, with the separate privatisation of Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell, would give Ravenscraig a chance to demonstrate its market strength. But the Government would not listen. I said:
"If Ravenscraig is to be killed, it will die with dignity. But the House will understand the politically explosive effects in Scotland if our largest fully competitive industrial unit were closed with the Government having denied the test of the market, in which they believe".—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 215.]
That effect will soon show in the ballot box.
First, is there any possibility of a phoenix operation now that British Steel is pulling out? The chances are slim, but they must be pursued until all reasonable possibilities are exhausted. The search must be taken up again for a steel business elsewhere in the world that has the finishing mills which British Steel has stripped from Ravenscraig. It could be supplied with high quality slabs from Ravenscraig at lower cost than by building itself a new modern steel-making plant. Scottish Enterprise must explore all possibilities. It will not be easy, and the chances of success are not high in view of the excess slab capacity elsewhere in Europe seeking distress sales.
I put the different proposition of using Ravenscraig as a demonstration plant for introducing thin slab casting into the integrated steelwork BOS—basic oxygen steel—route. Arthur D. Little endorsed it as the other option worth exploring. It would be a world first, with a new product and a new process. The Secretary of State and the Government have never understood that the last thing that British Steel and other conventional steel producers want is a new process which will undercut their costs and make their plants obsolete, so it has been a mini-mill in NUCOR in the United States that has pioneered the new thin slab technology. Without the research and development resources of a big steel company, there are still surface quality and other problems that need ironing out before the product can sell as top quality strip. There is no problem about installing it on a BOS plant; the quality problems will be solved there. There were similar problems with thick slab casting when it was introduced and it was Ravenscraig that pioneered that and strip products in this country. In some respects thin slab strip has inherently superior qualities, with its finer grain from more rapid cooling.
NUCOR and its plant builder, the German firm, Schloemann Siemag, is ready to assist in the examination of possibilities at Ravenscraig. I have suggested that the most likely way forward would be with a consortium of at least three steel producers interested in a full-scale demonstration of the process on a BOS plant. The process is long past the pilot plant stage. Because of the reluctance of British Steel and perhaps other European steel
566
companies to encourage a new process in their own market, the first member of the consortium might have to be a non-European steel company. Once it was apparent that the demonstration was likely to go ahead, European steel companies and, I suspect, British Steel—I have told it so—might have second thoughts. They might like to look at what is happening with the Japanese car plants.
There is precious little time to explore the options. I am going to NUCOR on 5 February to discuss the possibilities with the chairman, Mr. Kenneth Iverson. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing an executive from Scottish Enterprise to come to NUCOR with me. British Steel has told me that its offer to sell the Ravenscraig plant will expire in September when it closes the plant. It has pointed out that the one remaining blast furnace will then be allowed to cool, which normally results in the collapse of the brick lining, making the furnace inoperable until it has been re-built at a cost of £50 million. The coke ovens would also collapse, and their replacement would cost £150 million. To continue operating Ravenscraig from September, it would have to use the existing thick slab concast, so only slab sales would be possible and that faces the difficulty of the present depressed state of the steel market.
However, the blast furnace lining and the coke ovens are coming to the end of their useful life—that has been a careful part of British Steel planning—so little would be lost if there was a break in production while a new thin slab plant was built, but it means that a new operator would have to spend at least £250 million putting the steel making end in working order. People in Motherwell would have no wish to keep a derelict steel plant lying around. They are not interested in a Mickey Mouse gimmick to keep the plant stumbling along for a year or two. They would also not wish the liability for the costs of the reclamation of the steel sites to fall on a shell company with no resources, which would not be able to meet the costs. There is therefore no interest in keeping British Steel waiting indefinitely against the contingency of a buyer turning up at some indefinite time in the future.
Conversely, it would not be in British Steel's interest to be over-hasty in the demolition of Ravenscraig if the effect was to incur the heaviest possible claim for the most expensive kind of reclamation and restoration of the site as a country park. The Government's consultants, appointed by the Lanarkshire development agency on the prompting of the Scottish Office, have estimated that that would cost about £200 million.
My experience of the operating management of British Steel is that, within the limits of their job, they are reasonable men acting in a reasonable way, and I am sure that it is in our interests in Motherwell to deal with them as such. I am sorry that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office have not done that. There have been no informal meetings and no serious discussion, and now the Secretary of State has written formally to the chairman and wielded the big stick.
Everyone in Scotland supports the case for the modernisation and extension of the Dalzell works to the limits of its capacity as British Steel's lowest-cost option for the development of plate, and that is not now affected by the closure of Ravenscraig.
The Scottish National party policy for nationalisation as a solution does not add up, as The Glasgow Herald shows in articles today. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will show that clearly, if he

567
is successful in being called to speak in the debate. Once the election is over, Dalzell workers will be seen to be getting on with keeping their plant the model of efficiency, which is best calculated to win the long life for the plate mill that Motherwell desperately needs.
We must explore all possible avenues for steel, and we are doing so. The Secretary of State is utterly wrong to accuse us of not having specific proposals. We have some of the most specific and practical proposals, and I have the full support of the shadow Secretary of State, of the Leader of the Opposition, of the whole shadow Cabinet and of all my colleagues in Scotland in making these comments. It is therefore utterly preposterous for Conservative Members to think that my hon. Friends and I can be embarrassed on the token issue of nationalisation. We are not in that kind of political debating area. We are dealing with the serious business of industry.
Mr. Lang: I, too, am dealing with the serious matter of industry. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would say which of his leader's policies he supports. He cannot support them both.
Dr. Bray: Just prior to the debate, I was at a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition at which I went over the grounds of our case. He gives us his absolute, full and unqualified support. We must explore all possible avenues for steel. Everyone in Motherwell accepts that our future lies in new jobs, new industries and a new image of Lanarkshire.
The Government's antics have been pathetic. I shall not go into the details of the enterprise zone because, from what the Secretary of State said, it is clear that he has not been informed about the way in which matters have been developed and formulated.
The Secretary of State did not even mention the new link that is needed between the M74 and the M8, running through the Ravenscraig site, a matter which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked by the Prime Minister to investigate when we met the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman failed to do that to the extent of writing to me afterwards, saying that it was a matter for Strathclyde regional council.
We need the image-changing impact of a new Motherwell Parkway mainline station on that new motorway link and on the electrified Glasgow-Edinburgh mainline, with its InterCity services. We need that opening up of the steel sites as a new central Scotland business site linked to the overcrowded centres of Edinburgh and Glasgow. We need a new role for Motherwell and Bell colleges in providing vital new skills. We need the core developments that will launch new growth, with the encouragement and involvement of the private sector, which the Government have been totally inept in seeking.
We get none of that. We get, instead—this is typical—a cut in the housing capital allocation for Motherwell district council from the £25 million in the five-year capital programme to an appalling £15 million. What is the Secretary of State up to? Is he counting on the depopulation of Motherwell?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is making an incorrect claim because he is comparing the provisional allocation figure for 1992–93 with the final allocation for 1991–92. One must compare like with like. The council's housing
568
revenue account gross provisional allocation for 1992–93 totals £14.767 million. When expressed on a per house basis, far from being a decrease it represents an increase to £451 per council house.
Dr. Bray: I will not pursue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman at this stage. I will follow it up in writing.
Motherwell people hesitate to put to the Secretary of State any of the lively suggestions now being made because he simply strangles them at birth. He has made a total shambles of the redevelopment of Lanarkshire. Now that he has demonstrated the depth of the Government's incompetence, the people of Motherwell just want to get rid of the Government so that we can get on with building a new life for a viable and worthwhile comunity.
8.14 pm
Sir Hector Monro: It is impossible to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) without appreciating his knowledge and sincerity. I assure him that we feel for him as he obviously feels for his constituents.
Before dealing with the subject of the debate, I must say that, on a day when we have had such wonderful news about Yarrow, it is important to put on record our congratulations to the management, work force and design team there on having produced a contract that was manifestly acceptable to the Government. It is right also to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the part he played in achieving this vital order for the west of Scotland.
I look on this debate about Ravenscraig, sadly, as a lengthy extension of the debates we had on Gartcosh many years ago, when I forecast—at that time I voted against the Government—that, if we gave way on Gartcosh, it would be the long-term beginning and end of Ravenscraig. I regret that that has turned out to be the case.
That is why I am annoyed with the directors of British Steel for their action. We are talking of a great industry, and British Steel has a responsibility far wider than a normal public company with a board of directors responsible to its shareholders: it has a responsibility to the nation. It is British Steel, not Motherwell steel, Llanwern steel or Shotton steel. As British Steel, it has a responsibility to its work force, epitomised so wonderfully by Tommy Brennan over many years—I was delighted to see him mentioned in Her Majesty's new year's honours list.
Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman said that British Steel was responsible to its work force. He will be aware that British Steel negotiated an extraordinary package of redundancy money, representing two years' pay for workers made redundant at Ravenscraig—double the amount paid in the strip or general steel division. If the plant had stayed open until 1994, British Steel would have had to pay wages for two years and, on top of that, redundancy money. So, in effect, the company has stolen, on average, £30,000 from every Ravenscraig worker.
Sir Hector Monro: I do not profess to be a great expert on the ins and outs of British Steel and its relationship with its work force. I want to talk about the future, and the direction in which we may have to go.
I am extremely disappointed with Sir Robert Scholey and his fellow directors, who had an equal share in the decision. They manifestly failed to produce the financial

569
case. If they have such a case, let them publish it so that we may see the figures on which they based their decision. I also hope that they may in the not-too-distant future give some guarantee about investment in the Dalzell plate mill, so that there can at least be some confidence over the future of that plant.
I hope that the directors also appreciate the knock-on effect of their decision on local industry and concerns further afield. I also hope that there may be some way to save part of the plant, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South recommended. But if, reluctantly—and, I must say, with some anger—we must accept the British Steel decision, let us concentrate on the future and consider how we can turn an area of desperate trouble into a thriving economic region. In that context, I want to see some useful precedents used in the future.
This is not the first time that an area in this country or in America has run into a major economic disaster. We all remember the Tennessee Valley authority's great restoration plan before the war. The present situation, which has been signalled for a considerable time, has many similarities to the cases of Corby, Consett, Shotton, Barrow-in-Furness and perhaps even Cornish tin and some of the Welsh valleys. So we know what can happen in large-scale economic disasters and that we should set about trying to introduce new jobs and industries as soon as possible.
Whether the problem is on a large scale, such as the Ravenscraig closure, or on a small scale such as I faced in Sanquhar and Kirconnel way back in the 1960s when the coal mines closed, we must do everything possible to build advance factories and bring in new industries. Those do not provide a complete answer, but at least they provide jobs and help to make rapid progress.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend set up the Lanarkshire working group, which is now the Lanarkshire development agency, because it has been a great success. He must use every possible form of assistance available to him, whether it is the local enterprise company, Scottish Enterprise, Locate in Scotland or Industry in Scotland. We must look urgently at what each of those agencies can offer and they must be co-ordinated. I hope that they will be co-ordinated in the enterprise zone. That will be the key, as was shown in Corby. I hope that Sir Leon Brittan and Bruce Millan, if their responsibilities overlap, will do all they can to help us to achieve the enterprise zone as quickly as possible.
I was a little worried when my right hon. Friend mentioned—perhaps off the top of his head—500 acres. I should have thought that we would need a much more substantial area. I suspect that the Ravenscraig site measures more than 1,000 acres.
Dr. Bray: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Ravenscraig site is not even included in the enterprise zone.
Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to have that information. It worries me to an extent because of the future of the site, which I shall discuss in a moment.
I am also glad that the Secretary of State has been able to report success in attracting new industry to the area and that unemployment is now some 9,000 lower than it was four years ago. However, once we have that enterprise zone, it will need funding, leadership, speed and everyone
570
working together—cross-party, local authorities, planning authorities—at top speed to bring to fruition the advantages of having an enterprise zone.
Geographically, the area is well placed, with motorways, the new Mossend rail depot, the main line, the airport not too far away and, most importantly, the skilled work force. With spirit and determination, there can be great advantages ahead, so that that work force, which must be extremely despondent at British Steel's announcement, can look confidently to the future.
We must also consider quality of life and the environment. That will be partly the responsibility of British Steel. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South expressed his view on that. I am interested that he feels that the Ravenscraig site should not be changed into an environmentally attractive area but should remain a possible steelworks for some time to come. It will be a big operation to bring in all the agencies and authorities if we are to convert a major steel works, with all its contamination and toxic waste problems, into a new environment. We shall need a major new environmental assessment.
It was reported in The Scotsman that the Lanarkshire development agency has called for and received such an assessment and therefore has a basis upon which to work. However, the site could generate both revenue and capital rather than become the liability that some people anticipate. Throughout the process, speed is the watchword. We have no time to waste if the plant is really to close in about six months' time. We must consider the repercussions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which comes into force next year, so that British Steel does not take a hasty decision to avoid responsibilities.
I am glad that it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to co-ordinate all those agencies and the enterprise zone to push people forward with spirit and determination to achieve the new industries and bring new jobs to the area that has been afflicted by British Steel's decision. It can be done if we all approach it constructively. Let us get on with it now.
8.25 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about comparing this debate with that at the time of Gartcosh. Many people recognise, as the shop stewards did at the time, that the closure of Gartcosh was the beginning of the long road towards the end of the steel industry in Scotland. That is why they marched to London and some members of my party, not least councillor Jim Bannerman, took a prominent part in that march. Some Conservative Members who are still in the House did not exactly cover themselves with glory at that time. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) will confirm that members of the Select Committee sought to investigate the implications of Gartcosh but had some difficulty getting the Committee to agree to do so. We then had to suffer a filibuster from the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in an attempt to prevent the report from being completed.
Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) should also mention the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who made a gentleman's agreement with me at that time to vote with

571
the majority of the Committee but reneged on it. The hon. Gentleman sheds crocodile tears now, but he should have stood up and been counted then.
Mr. Bruce: I do not know about that, but the important point is that the problem has a long history and the people have seen it coming.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: No; the hon. Gentleman will get his own chance to speak.
The workers at Ravenscraig have been seeking to mobilise opinion for years to try to ensure that the steel industry had a future in Scotland. At the time of Gartcosh, the Conservatives could have done something about it but they tried to deflect a genuine attempt to investigate the implications of that decision. When it came to privatisation, the Secretary of State explained on three or four occasions why the Government did not explore the option put forward by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) or some similar option to create a competitor to British Steel at the time of privatisation. Instead, the Government gave the limp and weak response that they had to suffer from the fact that the industry had been nationalised and, as usual, they tried to blame the previous Government. The reality is that the entire ideology of privatisation has been about privatising monopolies to maximise the price—and to hell with competition policy and the real strategic interests for the future of the industry and the economy.
Once the Government let that opportunity go and we knew that Bob Scholey, with his commitment, was to become chairman of British Steel, Ravenscraig's future was sealed.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. First, it was not a matter of not exploring. Our advisers and the Government explored and reached the conclusion that it was not possible to privatise a separate, viable Scottish industry. Had an attempt been made to do so, it would have disappeared in the present economic circumstances. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that all privatisation is monolithic. He need only look at Scottish Buses or Scottish Electricity.
Mr. Bruce: Those came a little later and certainly the record of the major privatisations is that competition has not been a prime motivation of the Government.
The Secretary of State has chosen his words carefully in terms of the kind of privatisation that is to be explored. Is he seriously suggesting that the only possible future for the steel industry in Britain is as a single monopoly? I find that a rather extraordinary claim from a party that claims to believe in a free enterprise system. He knows that he failed both the people of Scotland and the people of Britain, because his predecessor, while British Steel was still in public ownership, used his power to prevent the closing of Ravenscraig. As a result, British Steel was able to secure markets which it would have forgone if it had been free to make its own choice. The intervention that the right hon. Gentleman deplores, carried out by his predecessor, was beneficial to British Steel, to its shareholders, to the Scottish economy and to the British economy. So while he may not wish to second guess British Steel management,
572
that management has been one of continuous retreat from market share, with the abandonment of markets to foreign competitors in a variety of areas. I regret to say that that appears to continue to be the strategy, to the detriment of the entire British economy.
Having got to where we are, the question that now arises is what is to be done to try to secure a future for the economy of Lanarkshire and west central Scotland as a result of this run-down and decline. We face a very serious situation. It would be helpful if the Government could give us a genuine, honest and detailed statement of exactly how much new money will be put into Lanarkshire when and if they secure the agreement of the European Community to the various measures being proposed, and if they will ensure that any additional money provided through the European Community will go to the people of Lanarkshire—rather than to the Treasury, as has been the Government's policy so far. I know that the Commissioner responsible has indicated that unless he gets that assurance from the Government he may not be able to secure that agreement from the Community.
With regard to the future of the steel industry in Scotland, I believe that all of us hope that any possible avenue which might lead to securing the future of the steel industry in Scotland should be explored and developed. That means the investment at Dalzell, of course, but also the potential for Hunterston to be the focus of a new steel industry in Scotland at some time in the future. It is still rated as one of the best deep-water sites in Europe and still seen to be a site which could be the focus of new investment. It seems to me that British Steel has shown itself unwilling to provide that investment, but it should not be in a position to prevent it.
Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to refer to Hunterston in the course of the debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Hunterston's potential is enormous. Hunterston must not be forgotten in this whole process. There must be every effort, involving Government, local authorities and all other parties, to try to get it right for Hunterston. I am sure that everyone would welcome as united an approach as possible on this.
Mr. Bruce: I echo what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is the right way forward.
The other question of great concern is the contribution that British Steel is likely to make to the reinstatement of the site. It has already been mentioned that the site will probably not be included in the enterprise zone. I hope that it will not. I believe that in the short run nobody will want to do anything with that site, if it is not to continue as a steelworks, until it has been thoroughly examined and reinstated. We have to get new jobs in the area quickly; we therefore want attractive areas in which people will want to invest, rather than places where people will be saddled with a whole range of problems. It is important that those two issues are kept separate.
In this connection, British Steel must co-operate fully in terms of making every bit of information that it has available to anybody and everybody who needs it for the purpose of reinstating the site. It is also important that British Steel should make a contribution which does not amount merely to a scorched-earth retreat. It must recognise that it has gained a great deal from the community of Lanarkshire, and that it has shown a

573
remarkable contempt for that community in not even being prepared to meet the work force through all the years that this battle has been going on. I am talking specifically of top management, though not necessarily the middle management. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate just what measures they are prepared to take to secure a real contribution from British Steel on those fronts.
The suggestion that there is any easy, quick fix which can resolve this matter has already been addressed. A solution cannot be plucked out of the air. I have already indicated that there were moments in the past when we might have secured it. We should still explore the options. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South has indicated some of the ways in which we might move forward, and I hope that they will be explored. Nobody wants a situation in which this misery is dragged out to the point where false hopes are maintained only to be dashed again. The community has to lift its eyes to a future that will last.
The suggestion that somehow or other simply nationalising the plant could solve all the problems is a mean one. It does not change anything fundamentally about the reality of the situation. While the European Community might allow nationalisation to take place, the notion that it would do so without very serious scrutiny of the motivation, mechanisms and financial implications is one out of cloud-cuckoo-land. The go-ahead that has been given for the French plant has been on the basis of four months' thorough investigation by independent Swiss auditors, with everything held on ice while it is being carried out and with major protests now coming from Spain and Germany at the Commission's allowing it to go ahead.
It will therefore not be possible to take the steelworks over on the cheap, because that would be anti-competitive and contrary to the Community terms. If it were taken over, the question to be asked would be whether it was really the best use of public money, even for the people of Lanarkshire. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he were here—I choose him specifically because his constituency is next to mine—whether he really thinks that the people of Banff and Buchan, with the hon. Member as Prime Minister, would necessarily regard £200 million to nationalise a steel plant in Lanarkshire as the best way to spend the Scottish taxpayers' money. The answer is that they probably would if they were absolutely sure that this would save those jobs permanently and create an industry that would last, but if it would only lead to tears two years later, they might well ask whether the money could not have been invested in a way that would better have secured the future of the economy of Lanarkshire.
It is important that the people of Scotland focus on how they would make such decisions if those decisions were under their own control, rather than simply blaming the Government and British Steel management for the way they have failed the people of Scotland so far, on which there is wide agreement.
It must be accepted that the community of Motherwell and the surrounding area wants recognition of what it has done and the responsibility that it has undertaken. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South gave a moving testimony to the people he represents. He has illustrated far more fully than I could what British Steel certainly owes to that community, and what the people of Scotland and of Britain also owe to that community, which has
574
conducted itself with considerable dignity and intelligence. That has been recognised by the overwhelming majority of people throughout Britain. Indeed, in a leader in the Financial Times, which unfortunately does not have a very wide circulation, it is indicated that that community deserves the very best that we can give it. I hope that some rather less sanguine organs south of the border may read that message and accept that at the end of the day the work force and community of north Lanarkshire deserve the kind of investment that will secure the long-term future for them and their children.
I wish to stress—as I have on numerous occasions, although I have not had the right answers yet—the role which I believe that the new town development corporations can play in this. It remains a fact that the Government intend to wind up the new towns. I accept the argument that they have been successful and that their role is coming to an end, but the expertise which exists in those new towns has attracted to Scotland investment which would not have come to Britain at all but for that expertise. We should redeploy that expertise to give the people involved the opportunity to attract new investment to the new sites in other parts of Lanarkshire. I do not mean just to advise; they need power and authority, and the kind of organisation that they have had in the new town development corporations. I urge the Government to look again at how that can be done. We should not be stealing jobs from other parts of Scotland or the United Kingdom but attracting mobile investment which might otherwise go elsewhere in the Community or to Japan or north America. That seems to me to be a worthwhile aim. We should not give up the expertise that we have at the very moment when we need it most. It would be an extraordinarily foolish Government who did not recognise the case for redeploying that expertise.
This has been a long debate—it has been going on for years. In many ways, I hope that it will not continue for many more, but that there will be hope and a future. No one can suggest that there are easy answers. We need co-operation involving all sorts of organisations—ultimately, across political parties and between Government, local authorities and the public and private sectors. We must put the machinery in place. The people of Lanarkshire deserve the best. If we cannot give them such co-operation, we shall have failed them.
8.40 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: As ever, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) demonstrated to the House the great depth of his knowledge of the industry and the fact that he genuinely cares about those who sent him here. He is a credit to them and to his party. Anything that I may say in no way reflects on him or on the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). During my time in the House, both of them have fought valiantly for those they represent.
I wish that I could say the same of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who makes the most appalling accusations. He suggested that I had behaved wrongly in relation to the Select Committee inquiry into Gartcosh. My views and my position are on record, and I stand by them today. I did not behave dishonourably in insisting that the report reflected the evidence given to the Committee. The final report did just that, so I cannot see how I behaved badly.
Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not behave dishonourably. I accept that he was one of the few Tory members of the Select Committee who stuck to his view, which was that he was not in favour of giving any help to Gartcosh. That is certainly correct. That was not the case with the other Conservative Members, some of whom behaved dishonourably and let us down.
Mr. Walker: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not expect me to respond to that appalling statement. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of one thing and then accuses my colleagues of another. The plain truth is that he was rumbled, and he did not like it.
This is both a good day and a sad day for Scotland—the day of Yarrow and Ravenscraig. Earlier, we had the good news that the order for three frigates for the Royal Navy has gone to Yarrow. That order allowed the privatised yard—something that the hon. Member for Gordon seems to have forgotten—to retain its design team and so continue in competition in the world market.
That was made possible because, under a Conservative Government, there is a substantial home market for military hardware, and steel is important in military hardware. Such a home market would not have existed under a socialist Labour Government at Westminster or a socialist nationalist Government in Edinburgh. The lesson is that private sector competition and a substantial home market allow even specialist industries such as warship building to compete in world markets. I hope that we shall not forget that lesson when we discuss other matters.
I congratulate the work force and shop stewards of Ravenscraig. For the past eight years, they have been nothing less than magnificent. They have removed restrictive practices and broken all production records. Today, they are paying the terrible price for world over-capacity in steel-making and the lack of demand. They are also paying the price, I believe, for the mistakes made by politicians—in the location of the plant so far from the deep-water port of Hunterston—and it is right and proper that Hunterston should come into our considerations. They are also paying the price for the failure of the European Community to deal quickly and effectively with such matters as the Spanish steel subsidy and also for the world recession. All those factors have brought about the present situation.
The workers of Ravenscraig deserve better. If the proposals of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South are not realised—I sincerely hope that they can be—the workers are right to demand good redundancy terms and special assistance to the area, to create an environment in which new enterprises and jobs can be created.
I believe that it is right—it is a principle from which I will not deviate—that management decisions must be made by the management of companies. I also believe in the private sector. Consequently, I support the right of British Steel to make the decision that it has made, painful though it may be. British Steel should, however, explain—I believe it has a moral duty to do so—why it has made that decision.
Following its promise to keep the plant open until 1994, that moral responsibility is enormous. British Steel ought to explain in detail the grounds on which the decision has been made. That is the very least that it can do for its work force, given the way in which that work force has responded over the years to the demands placed upon it.
576
Similarly, those who are looking to the Government to intervene have a duty to spell out exactly what they would do with their intervention within what is possible under EC restraints and rules and within the constraints of the marketplace as it stands today. They must spell out clearly how much it would cost and explain who will pay in a manner that can be understood.
The two articles in today's Glasgow Herald address the realities of the situation and do a fair demolition job on the nationalist party's simplistic, non-viable, opportunist proposals. The socialist nationalists have learnt nothing from the failure of collectivism and state industry in eastern Europe. Their behaviour in the Usher hall last Saturday was a vivid demonstration of what narrow nationalism is really like.
Socialist nationalism is the worst form of nationalism. I am reminded that, between the French revolution and the first world war, narrow nationalism was the cause of most of Europe's wars. I am also reminded that, between 1930 and 1945, socialist nationalism almost destroyed Europe.
Ravenscraig and Scotland do not want narrow socialist nationalism—nor do we want any further examples of the Fuhrer-like superior attitudes, tendencies and characteristics of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Those, coupled with Goebbels-type misinformation about saving the steel works, will be rejected by the workers at Ravenscraig and by the Scots at the general election. They have been exposed by the Glasgow Herald today and will be rumbled by the people of Scotland at the election.
This is a sad day for the people of Motherwell, but I hope that it can also be the beginning of a new dawn for them; they certainly deserve it.
8.49 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: Monklands is an important part of Lanarkshire. Strathkelvin includes Gartcosh, which almost every hon. Member speaking in this debate has mentioned. I would be less than human if I were not to say that I am disappointed by the signals that I have been getting that I should speak for only five minutes. However, out of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who has made such a contribution to our debates on steel, I shall confine myself to five minutes.
I wish, in the very brief time available to me, to make four points. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer on the Front Bench. If anything summarises the supine, do-nothing approach to steel, it is the timetable leading up to the announcement which the Secretary of State confirmed in the House tonight. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) the Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, confirmed that, although he knew on 20 December that this closure would take place, the only action he took between then and 9 January, when the other place resumed, was to make application for an enterprise zone. [Interruption.] I am going by what the Secretary of State told the House. Although I have only five minutes, I am willing to give way to the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not knowingly mislead the House. He must know that the Secretary of State wrote immediately

577
to demand a meeting with Sir Robert Scholey and his colleagues before the board meeting at which the decision was taken. Of course, that meeting with Sir Robert was held.
Mr. ClarkeThe Minister's intervention takes absolutely nothing from my general point. The Secretary of State ought to recognise that either he has power or he does not have power. There is a very clear precedent. His predecessor as Secretary of State—the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—came to the House and made a statement when the hot mills were closed. Whereas the current Secretary of State has not found it possible to criticise British Steel, the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands made it absolutely plain that he was opposed to British Steel's position.
The present Secretary of State's weak and mealy-mouthed response on this issue is entirely unacceptable. [Interruption.] It looks as though the Under-Secretary would like me to give way again. If I had time to do so, I would. If the hon. Gentleman is to be fair, he will allow me, as the Member representing the much-mentioned Gartcosh, another two and a half minutes to say a word or two about something we happen to know about. During the Gartcosh episode, we warned, both in the Select Committee and in the Chamber—indeed, we warned again and again and again—that, if the cold mill was closed, it would be a matter of time until Ravenscraig too would go, and that is what has happened.
There has been a search for scapegoats. We are told that there are several problems, one of which is that there is not a finishing plant. But that is the result of a Government decision, supported by the House. Obviously, privatisation weakened our position. In the case of Scottish Power, where there was not even a Scottish dimension, privatisation was not the same, but that too was the result of a Government decision endorsed by the Conservative majority, and we in Lanarkshire are now paying the price.
Then we were told by British Steel and the Government that this had something to do with profits. We were told that British Steel's profit would go down from £307 million to £19 million. Whose fault is that? Is there not a recession? Do the Government not have something to do with it? Did we not warn that if we did not have the necessary investment in manufacturing industry and training, and the necessary investment in Lanarkshire, this was inevitable?
Despite the unacceptable brevity of this debate, the people in my constituency are left with a number of problems.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary's sedentary interruptions are not helping one iota. Let him go to Gartcosh and see things for himself.
I hope that it does not signal what we shall see at Ravenscraig, given that British Steel tells us that it will cost £200 million to clear the site. At Gartcosh, we have a derelict site, with not a job in sight. Despite the promises of 1985–86, the paper recycling plant has not got off the ground. This is the result of the Government's economic policy, in addition to what they did to Gartcosh.
I want to end with a plea. Even today there is a case for a fight for what remains of the steel industry in Lanarkshire. Even today we have to consider the Ravenscraig closure's implications for 149 firms in
578
Monklands itself, as well as for the Mossend freightliner depot, about which the Government today, yet again, told us so proudly.
This decision is a major blow to the infrastructure of Lanarkshire and the matter will not end with this debate. The Scottish people reserve the right to make their comments, and I believe that they will do so. This decision was made inevitable by weak, supine men—men who do not match the steel of the steelworkers of Lanarkshire—but let it be clear that, when the election is held in a few weeks' time, just as the Conservatives have manifestly deserted Scotland, the people of Scotland will desert them
8.55 pm
Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for making time for me. One of the tragedies of debates of this kind is that, although they should be held in Government time, they are not. After all, the Government are the guilty men. In addition, we could do without juvenile interventions such as we had earlier from the young Back-Bench Conservative Member wearing the red tie—I refer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). Apparently he has gone back to his nursery, as he does on such occasions, having made one or two interventions. Conservative Members obviously have no interest in this matter, nor have they shown any for the past five years.
What has happened at Ravenscraig is a tragedy. "Tragedy" is a word that the sophisticated leader-writers do not like us to use. They have said that it is a word that we Scots take out of the bottom drawer on such occasions. They do not believe that we know its meaning. Well, Ravenscraig is a tragedy in the classical sense. It is the unfolding story of men and women, not eminently good or bad, but decent and dignified, fighting against almost insurmountable odds and eventually being overpowered by powers outside their own persuasion or dictation. Perhaps, before so easily dismissing Scottish Members of Parliament as bawling illiterates, the leader-writers of the London and southern English press should consider the story of Ravenscraig.
Tonight the Secretary of State used a wonderful euphemism when he told us that it was inevitable that there would be "some contraction". The Secretary of State regards the closure, the industrial murder of Ravenscraig as "some contraction". I have no personal ill-feeling towards the Secretary of State, who appears to have departed for the moment, but tonight he performed in the most oily fashion that I have seen any Secretary of State display. That was in contrast not just with his predecessors, including the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who is with us tonight and who was at least prepared to fight, to answer honest criticism and even at one stage to put his office at stake; it was in marked contrast also with the dignified contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
The word "inevitable" which the Secretary of State used today typified the attitude of the Conservative party over the past few years. The closure of Ravenscraig was never inevitable. I do not want to dwell on the past tonight, but we need to understand the past to understand where we are, and we need to understand where we are to understand the alternatives for the future.

579
There is no integrated modern steel plant in the world that does not have two essential components: a steel-making side and a finishing side, a hot and cold mill. That is patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about the steel industry. Yet in a cold, calculated fashion British Steel went ahead, at best with Government collusion, at worst with Government connivance, and on occasion with encouragement from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) over Gartcosh, to deprive the Ravenscraig plant of one half of its essential elements—the finishing side.
In 1985–86 British Steel closed the Ravenscraig cold mill at Gartcosh. In 1990, it closed the hot mill. Simultaneously it refused to invest in the blast furnaces, running the plant down to a one-blast furnace operation. There were two consequences of that cold, clinical action. First, it left what remained of Ravenscraig on 7 January this year completely dependent on other plants inside British Steel for its finishing operation. Secondly, the action ensured that if Ravenscraig were removed from British Steel it would be left as a producer of raw slab steel only, without a finishing side and requiring massive investment for it to be brought back to being a viable and integrated plant.
We start from here, not from where we want to be, and I shall return to this idea later when considering some of the proposed options. For the present, I put it on record that the Government were well aware that the emasculation of one half—the vital half—of the Ravenscraig steel plant was under way.
The Government were warned six years ago almost to the day, on 8 January 1986, by those of us who marched from Gartcosh to London to bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, who, as I recall, was too busy to meet those of us who had walked 400 miles. She was having tea with Ian Botham. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned that tonight, and full credit to him for his support on that occasion.
The Government ignored the warnings. They were continually warned at the time of privatisation, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South, that if British Steel was privatised as a single unit monopoly, that would inevitably lead to the closure of Ravenscraig. This was the last chance, yet the Government ignored the warnings. We pleaded with them, asking them to allow the privatisation of a separate unit of Ravenscraig, of the plate mill at Dalzell and of the finishing works at Shotton.
The Secretary of State told us tonight that on that occasion he voted against a separate Scottish steel industry. Not only did he reject the idea, therefore, but he did not even understand what was being proposed. No one was asking him—apart from the Scottish National party—for a separate Scottish steel industry. We were asking the Secretary of State for a unit that included the steelmaking at Ravenscraig, the finishing side at Shotton and the plate mill. The Government rejected that and ignored our arguments. The tragedy was that, although the idea had the support of the Liberals, the Labour party, Motherwell district council, Strathclyde region, the campaign for the steel industry and the Ravenscraig shop stewards, the only people who opposed that last chance to save Ravenscraig as a viable unit—apart, that is, from the
580
Government—were members of the SNP. Indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said on Third Reading of the relevant Bill that his party opposed the idea, presumably because Shotton was not in Scotland. What a way to make a decision of such importance for the industry!
Mr. Alex Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I voted for the RSD option, despite the fact that I was arguing for a separate Scottish steel industry. He may also care to recall that he did not even carry his Front-Bench spokesmen with him in supporting that option.
Dr. Reid: That is not true and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. We had discussions throughout with the people involved, and we carried our Front-Bench spokesmen with us. As so often, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Although I wish the Dalzell workers well, I must point out that, tragically, the only other people who opposed the idea were the shop stewards at Dalzell, even though it was the last chance to save Ravenscraig. We remember that now, when the SNP proposes keeping the Dalzell works and Ravenscraig without a finishing side at Shotton.
As I say, the Government ignored our warnings, and on occasion we have been bereft of support from others. What is to be done now? The Government say that there is nothing to be done. That is typical of their attitude over the past few years. For all their posturing and posing, the word was given out by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when refusing to meet the shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Trade and Industry. Three days ago he said:
"Ravenscraig shows the folly of political intervention in commercial decisions".
There you have it. For the Tories, Ravenscraig is not an industrial tragedy; it is and always has been a political folly. Despite the posturing, that is what has underlain their words.
But if we have a "do nothing" Government, we are not helped by a "promise everything" Opposition in the person of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is a tragedy that we have been diverted from the main possible alternative to save steelmaking by the fantasies that have been put forward for political reasons by the hon. Member. I have to spend some time tonight going through them because they are deluding some people—not many in Motherwell, I may add, but the less one knows about steelmaking the more attractive those proposals sound.
I should like to spend some time on the plans—there have been more than one. The first, in the immediate aftermath of the closure announcement, was to nationalise and restore Ravenscraig, presumably as a Scottish competitor to Port Talbot and Llanwern. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan shakes his head. It was not he who made it; it was the steel spokesman who spends all the money apparently, Mr. Lawson. To the Ravenscraig shop stewards who knew the plant and industry better than anyone, the plan was sheer fantasy.
It will be obvious from what I have said already that the proposition would require vast expenditure. The purchase price of the plant, £50 million to reline the blast furnaces, £650 million for a cold mill, £750 million for a hot mill and £100 million for other necessary investment, such as coke ovens and blast furnaces, came to a total of about £1,700 million. The Scottish National party has never disputed

581
that figure. It has said that it cannot be realistic because the share value is greater than that. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Ayr that, in his new job as chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the first things to do is to make sure that the economists he employs know the difference between share value and capital value, because it is obvious from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that not all of them have done in the past.
Plan 2 came 48 hours later. When the Scottish National party found out the actual cost, it dropped the plan to reinstate Ravenscraig. It suddenly announced—again, Mr. Lawson in a radio broadcast with me and after a telephone conversation with the shop stewards at the Clydesdale works, who informed me about it, I am afraid—that the new plan was to nationalise Clydesdale. Clydesdale had been closed eight months earlier, but presumably then the Scottish Nationalists were committed to refitting the mills at Clydesdale. This would cost another £150 million. They threw in Clydebridge and Dalzell at the same time.
Plan 3 was on the Sunday, because the cavalry came over the hill in the form of the Dalzell shop stewards. They gave them a plan which was perhaps new to the Scottish National party—it was certainly not new to the Ravenscraig shop stewards, who had been offered it for three years and had tossed it aside as unrealistic. Plan 3 is the one that they stick to now. It promises to restore Ravenscraig as a producer sending 1 million tonnes of slab to the Dalzell plate mill, and proposes the building of a new pipe mill at another site in Motherwell, the cost of which varies between £150 million and £250 million. We will not quibble about that: different people make different analyses.
There is absolutely nothing new in the proposal. It has been considered and consistently rejected by those who know the industry—above all, the steel workers at Ravenscraig. But for the sake of fairness to the SNP—because, as hon. Members know, I am a fair man—let us assume that this £250 million is not in addition to the £2,000 million already spent by Mr. Lawson. If we were to assume that it was in addition, at the present rate of daily expenditure announced by the Scottish National party steel spokesman, by my calculations that party would have spent the entire budget of an imaginary Scottish government by St. Valentine's day this year.
Let us even assume, for the sake of argument, that costs for Ravenscraig and a new Dalzell pipe mill are accurate. The problem with the SNP nationalisation plan 3 is neither dogmatic nor ideological; it is that it is still wholly unrealistic. Let us look at just some of the criticisms. First, it assumes that a two-blast furnace operation at Ravenscraig would be viable at a production level of 1 million tonnes. Wrong. As the work force, economists and industrialists will tell the SNP, the viability figure of Ravenscraig is nearer 2 million tonnes.
Secondly, if Ravenscraig is to produce the necessary 2 million tonnes to make it a viable unit and Dalzell is to take a supposed 1 million tonnes on the plate mill, what is to be done with the extra 1 million tonnes of raw slab from Ravenscraig? Give it to charity? Perhaps give it out in Leningrad along with the butter? It certainly cannot be sold.
Thirdly, what makes the SNP think that Dalzell can take I million tonnes from Ravenscraig? In the best years, 1988–89 and 1989–90, it took only about 350,000 tonnes a year. How will the SNP suddenly triple the amount that can be taken by Dalzell?
582
Fourthly, the SNP assumes a massive, easy and open market in the North sea. Of course, no figures are given, so I bothered to check on the latest figures. The total market for the United Kingdom sector in the North sea in the past year—which was not a bad year—was 274,000 tonnes, roughly 25 per cent. of what will pass through Dalzell's plate mill. Of that 274,000 tonnes, only 71,000 tonnes was plate. Much of it was in seamless tubes, light gauge plate, which are not produced in Scotland—unless the SNP intends to reopen the Clydesdale works and spend £250 million on that mill.
Fifthly, is the SNP aware that the maximum length of Dalzell plate production is 23 m while the modern market demands 50 m plate? Even if money were invested to meet that requirement, the layout of the Dalzell plant is such that, to get the extra length, the plant would have to be turned at right angles. Do SNP members propose to turn it at right angles? If they do, have they told Bishop Joe Devine, because they would need to knock down Motherwell cathedral?
Sixthly, does the SNP think that it would be commercially competitive to produce steel at Ravenscraig at 1,500 deg, cool it and load it on a lorry, transport it to Dalzell, unload it and put it in the plate mill, heat it again to reduce it to plate, cool it and load it on a lorry, transport it to the new pipe mill that it proposes to build somewhere else, unload it from the lorry, place it in the pipe mill, bend it, put it on a lorry and send it to the customer? If the SNP thinks that that is a viable scenario to compete with others in the market, its view of competition is different from mine.
I shall not go into detail on the challenge to me about what Labour would do, but I shall deal with it quickly. First, we would insist that British Steel maintains the plant for sale on the market. [Interruption.] One of the ways is to make British Steel aware that £200 million in reclamation charges are hanging over its head if it does not play ball with the Government. Secondly, Government resources must be used in the search for a buyer. It should not be left to British Steel. Why are not the embassies and the Department of Trade and Industry making efforts to sell it? The third course of action is to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has been doing, which is single-handedly to investigate thin-slab casting. It is amazing that the Government, with all their resources, are sending someone along with an Opposition Member to the United States to study an issue that they should have been studying long ago.
Finally, it should be made absolutely plain to any potential buyer that the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to intervene financially in a joint venture. That matter has been discussed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is at one with the Ravenscraig shop stewards. Eighteen months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pledged to make finance available to develop it.
I thank the shop stewards and the representatives of the workers at Ravenscraig. With three possible exceptions, the message from all hon. Members to those shop stewards is: "Do not think that you are demeaned or belittled when you are attacked by lesser men." It is the easiest thing in the world to take workers into a struggle that they cannot win and then to wash one's hands and say, "We did not sell out." It is harder to lead with honesty. The Ravenscraig shop stewards made it plain at the beginning of the campaign that they would never make aim promise that they

583
could not keep, never make a pledge that they would not strive to maintain, and never make a claim that they could not justify. They have done us proud. The Labour party will adopt those three slogans, as it has in the past. We shall continue to fight for steel. We shall not make promises that we cannot keep or pledges that are fantasy, and we shall not exploit the workers in our area for our political advancement. The Ravenscraig stewards have done it, we have done it and the people of Motherwell, Lanarkshire and Scotland generally will recognise it and support us for doing exactly what the stewards did.
9.14 pm
Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on his devastating analysis of the interventionist policies of the Scottish National party. Just as those policies are madcap, so are the interventionist policies of the hon. Gentleman's own party. I look forward to his being equally critical of some of the policies put forward by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) from time to time.
This has been a good day for Scotland. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Defence was able to announce that Yarrow is getting the order for three frigates. That will guarantee employment at the Yarrow yard for a substantial time. There was some snide comment that it was a political decision—and it was, of course, because the size of the defence budget is a political decision.
If the defence budget were cut by one third, as the Labour party advocates, there would be no orders for frigates at Yarrow today. If the defence budget were cut by 50 per cent., as the Liberal Democrats suggest, there would perhaps be no Scottish regiments left, and there would certainly be no orders for Yarrow. It is hypocritical of the Liberal party to go round Kincardineshire saying that it is against the removal of the regiments and that it supports orders for Scotland when it wants to halve the deference budget.
We have had an interesting debate. We heard the shadow Secretary of State announce that nationalisation was a slogan put forward by those with no expectation of power. I shall remember that when the Labour party says that it intends to nationalise the water industry. The people of Scotland are being told by the SNP that British Steel assets in Scotland should be nationalised to preserve jobs. Did nationalisation ever preserve jobs on the railways? Has it preserved jobs in British Coal? Did it preserve jobs in the shipbuilding industry? Of course it did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Rolls-Royce?"] Hon. Members who intervene from a sedentary position should realise that the prosperity of companies like Rolls-Royce will be better guaranteed in the private sector than ever it would be in the public sector.
The lesson of Ravenscraig is that it provides a cautionary tale for those politicians who think that they can buck the market indefinitely. The lesson of Ravenscraig, Bathgate and Linwood for the Scottish people is:
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."
It casts doubt on those politicians who say that they can bring 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 jobs to Scotland overnight.
584
The speech of the shadow Secretary of State was, as usual, very loquacious. He was happy to pour words on troubled waters, but he could not produce a policy that would create or save one job at Ravenscraig.
The most dishonest policy in respect of Ravenscraig comes from the Scottish National party. If it were campaigning for an independent Scotland within Europe, how would it expect that country to solve the problem of Ravenscraig? The European Community would not stop the SNP nationalising Ravenscraig, but it would tell the SNP that it could not carry on subsidising Ravenscraig once it had nationalised it. It is in order for a private company to run a plant at a loss, but for the state permanently to subsidise an industry would be against the rules of the European Community. The Scottish National party knows that an independent Scotland within the European Community could not run Ravenscraig at an indefinite loss. It is trying to con the people of Scotland, and particularly of Ravenscraig, by pretending that it could save the plant by nationalising it. It is putting forward a misleading campaign. It knows that it is a misleading campaign.
Similarly the Labour party is putting forward a misleading campaign. That is why the Opposition chose to have only a half-day debate on Ravenscraig. They have frozen out some of their colleagues by having only a half-day debate. They also chose to hold it in the second half of a Thursday when they know that most members of the press who would realise that they are using merely empty words have gone home.
The long-term prosperity of Lanarkshire and Scotland will not be guaranteed by shoring up loss-making industries and indulging in quill pen economics. Prosperity will come only by encouraging profitable, dynamic industries to come to Scotland. Lanarkshire has many attractions for industry. It has a well-recognised, well-respected labour force and good communications. It will be unbeatable as an enterprise zone. I hope that Commissioner Milian, who has done so much to restrict money coming to areas of high unemployment in the United Kingdom, will do nothing to stop an enterprise zone being created in Lanarkshire.
9.20 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: When the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who sat down to great cheers from his supporters, reads what he said tomorrow in the cold light of day, I do not believe that he will feel as happy as he did a few moments ago. What we got from him, tragically, was a comprehensive rubbishing of the Dalzell plant. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are unhappy, but they will have to listen. I intend to continue until I have finished my speech.
Although the hon. Gentleman's supporters clapped and cheered, one of the things that they have to understand is that his argument against the Ravenscraig-Dalzell link up—
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sillars: No.
Mr.Reid rose—
Mr. Sillars: Sit down. The hon. Gentleman made fun of steel passing backwards and forwards—[Interruption.]
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) does not intend to give way, so he has the Floor.
Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order that the Chair can deal with.
Dr. Reid: When I went to give my notes to Hansard, as requested, I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) referred to me. In those circumstances, is it not the convention and would it not be courteous for the hon. Gentleman to give way to me so that I can correct what was a lie? I did not refer to the steel workers at Dalzell——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. First, I will ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his phrase "a lie." Then I can deal with his point of order.
Dr. Reid: I meant, of course, that it was an untruth.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is up to the hon. Member for Govan, who has the Floor, to decide whether to give way. He appears not to be doing so. He must therefore be allowed to continue with his speech.
Mr. Sillars: That was the first of the Freudian slips that were made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. I never mentioned the workers or the shop stewards at Dalzell. I said that he had rubbished the plant at Dalzell.
Mr. George Foulkes: Oh, no.
Mr. Sillars: Does not the stupid Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) understand——
Mr. Foulkes: Why does not the hon. Gentleman stand against me and have a go at the next election?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This has been a very well conducted debate so far. We are now coming towards the end of the debate and we want a proper winding up. Let us listen to all those hon. Members who want to speak.
Mr. Sillars: As I was saying, and as I intend to say, this stupid man here does not understand that, if we rubbish a plant, we damage its future standing in the minds of the policy makers who have to decide its future.
One of the tragedies of the first phase of the Ravenscraig closure was the comprehensive rubbishing of the Ravenscraig plant—(Interruption.] Then they said—
Dr. Reid: By The Sun.
Mr. Sillars: Opposition Members who have been——
Dr. Reid: You are the paymaster.
Mr. Sillars: You people who have been——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can hear only one hon. Member at a time—[Interruption.] Order. I cannot
hear myself think this evening. Will hon. Members please come to order? Mr. Sillars.
Mr. Sillars: We are taking no lectures from folk who, for a long time, were in political bed with that crook, Bob Maxwell.
586
The great tragedy of the first phase was the rubbishing of the Ravenscraig plant. How is it possible to say thereafter, "We should like somebody to come along and buy a plant that we have just rubbished"? Every speech that I have heard tonight from a Labour Member has been towards the compelling logic of the public ownership of the steel industry.
Dr. Reid: What?
Mr. Sillars: Oh yes. Opposition Members have kept saying, "We could press British Steel, but everybody knows that that is a waste of time." The hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, "Let someone take Scottish assets into private ownership and we will join in a joint venture"; but why not take Scottish assets into public ownership and then be open to a joint venture with a private organisation later? Their compelling logic is certain. We all know that what we have had from British Steel has been the malevolent exercise of monopolistic power in the private sector. The standard socialist answer to such power is to take it into public ownership—not to allow that malevolent power to dominate strategic industries and communities.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, "We don't like to make promises that we canna keep." So let me ask him about the promise that was made on 23 February 1988, when his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said:
"for the reasons that I have yet to develop fully, Opposition Members and the trade union movement strongly believe that the steel industry is most appropriately owned in a form of public ownership. We shall decide that form and the order of priorities by which it is to be secured when we return to power"—[Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 184.]
What about the priorities now in Lanarkshire? The hon. Gentleman's priorities now are to take British Steel's assets in Scotland out of the grip of the board of British Steel, that being the only guarantee of preserving jobs and the Scottish steel industry in Lanarkshire.
The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Motherwell, North have said, "Look at the nonsense of the £1.7 billion compared to the price of the shares on the stock exchange today." Do they not understand that, if I say to somebody, "I should like you to spend £1.7 billion buying our plant", that person is likely to reply, "I would buy your plant only if I wanted access to certain markets, but I can get the whole of British Steel, including the assets of your plant, wholly and totally for only £1.3 billion and, as a matter of fact, if I want control, I do not need to spend £1.3 billion, I need to spend only £700 million"—
Dr. Reid: Let us suppose that that mythical chap did come along and that the share value stayed at its current level—because it was known that there was a buyer, it might double or even treble—but let us suppose that, against all the evidence from the history of the market, the share value remained static. The buyer would still have to spend £1.7 billion on top of the share value simply to make it productive.
Mr. Sillars: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's account, the strip mill is still there. He included it in the £1.7 billion. He has the same economic adviser and calculator as Alf Young of the Glasgow Herald.
I want to argue that the best way to save the Scottish steel industry is to take all British Steel's assets in Scotland

587
into public ownership. The thing to do is to captialise on the reprieve for Dalzell because Dalzell is the key to the retention of the base of the Scottish steel industry, on which base we could rebuild the industry.
If folk say to me, "Where did you invent that 1 million tonnes stuff?", I will tell them that it is from a report produced for Labour Strathclyde region by the department of political economy at Glasgow university in February 1990. It said:
"The Dalzell plant currently takes about 25 per cent. of Ravenscraig's production."
Later, on page 23, it makes a good point. This is endorsed by Labour Strathclyde region. The report says:
"Ravenscraig's product range is ideal for supplying a large plate mill."
We are talking about a 1-million-tonne mill.
"It has developed special techniques for ingot production for thick plate applications and has a casting capacity of 1.9 million tonnes per annum which can be flexibly switched between slab and strip production to suit market sentiment."
It went on to argue that the configuration between Ravenscriag and Dalzell was suited to the market that is now developing. It described the market as a fragmented, demand-led market, where people might demand a smaller tonnage of steel but wanted highly specialised steel and special products. The report argued eloquently that that configuration would meet market circumstances in the years that lay ahead. So that is the argument on which we have founded our case—an argument produced by Glasgow university and endorsed by Strathclyde regional council.
At the root of the matter lies this issue. There will be a 100-million-tonne plate mill with a pipe mill attached thereto, with a steel supplier up front. The question is whether it goes to Teesside or Lanarkshire, because the potential of the Scottish steel industry as we conceive it is exactly the same as British Steel conceives it. It would do what we ask today if the cash position was better than it is. That is the key factor. The only way to guarantee that the mill goes to Lanarkshire is to take the assets into public ownership. If the Labour party was worth its socialist salt, it would agree with me 100 per cent. of the way.
It is remarkable to hear Labour Member after Labour Member complain about the misapplication of private power but not follow the ideological guidance system and say that that private power must be curbed by the application of public power to take those assets into public control. They remind me of the ditty: "The people's flag is now mauve in hue. No longer red, it is turning a contemptible blue".
9.33 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly at the end of this extremely important debate for my constituents and for people in many other parts of Scotland.
I begin by quoting the Financial Times. The Secretary of State for Scotland chose to give a quotation from it earlier. I shall come to that in a moment. First, I should like to quote a section of an editorial which appeared in that prestigious newspaper on 9 January. It is quoted in the document given to me and to many other hon. Members by my friend and constituent Rev. John Potter, the industrial chaplain to Lanarkshire who has done so much during the period of the rundown of the great steel
588
industry to comfort the people that he serves and to campaign on their behalf. The words that he quoted are worth listening to because the Financial Times played such a marginal part in the Secretary of State's speech.
The editorial stated:
"The only other thing to be written in the Ravenscraig epitaph is that there was never a community more deserving of EC and UK Government help in rebuilding its local economy. Ravenscraig's work force has been loyal, hardworking and as efficient as the plant permitted. It has every right to expect politicians to move whatever bureaucratic obstacles stand in the way of measures to stimulate the creation of jobs in industries more suited to the periphery of Europe."
I hope that the Secretary of State will pay as much attention to that as he did to his selective quotation. So much was made of that quotation that I wish to direct the House's attention to the rest of it, which the Secretary of State did not choose to point out.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, in response to a question put by the Financial Times about sectoral intervention, taking steel as an example:
"it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs. What the steel industry needs is a more vibrant domestic market, specially in the manufacturing sector and a chance therefore to make even further increases in their productivity and be more competitive in difficult international markets."
If the Secretary of State agreed with the part that he quoted, does he agree that the Government have supervised a Scottish and a British economy which has created the conditions in which the steel plants of Scotland and of Britain are in such trouble?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's attention must have wandered. Had he been in the Chamber throughout my speech, he would have heard me read precisely that part of the quotation which he has just quoted and which I endorsed.
Mr. Robertson: It was a selective quotation, underscored, missing out the key component that the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland understand—that it is not intervention at this stage which matters, but the fact that the economy is in such deep trouble that we are at the bottom of all the European leagues. That is why Ravenscraig has been picked out at this point.
In this debate, as my hon. Friends and those who represent the rest of industrial Lanarkshire have rightly pointed out, it would be easy to be critical of a Government who have done so little and yet protest so much when the final decision has been taken. One cannot complain if a butterfly cannot get into the air when its wings have been taken off. The Government stood back when the steel industry got into that plight.
British Steel is a public limited company which does not even have the guts to come to Scotland and explain the reasons why a controversial decision was necessary. Sir Bob Scholey may well believe in his heart of hearts that it is the right decision, but if that is so, as the steward of the private steel industry in this country, why did he not have the courage and decency to face those people who rose to every exhortation to deal with the challenge put before them?
I shall briefly outline some of the arguments put by Rev. John Potter to hon. Members. He did not do so in a spirit of looking back or of recrimination. Practical issues concern him and should concern all Members of the House. He mentioned the number of small companies which will be dramatically affected as a result of the

589
premature closure of Ravenscraig and which cannot expect to get headlines in the way that major companies have. Both he and I ask the Minister whether it is possible to survey the impact on such small companies and study what can be done for them. What about employees of the contractors' firms, who will not be able to share in the benefits of the redundancy terms offered by British Steel? What will be done in the way of retraining and re-employment for the people affected?
Rev. John Potter asks about the possibility of a "brainstorming" meeting at which ideas, many of which were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), could be put forward to help the future regeneration of an area which has been so hard hit. He asks about the enterprise zone. I shall not go over the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the unacceptable and unforgivable delay in moving between the recommendation of the Lanarkshire working party and the application for enterprise zone status. What about the delay and uncertainty that will be created in the meantime before the small enterprise zones get off the ground? Those few questions are relevant, reasonable and deserve serious and sober answers from a Government who have an obligation and a responsibility.
The decision to close Ravenscraig has been a blow to the industrial heartlands of Scotland and to the thousands of people and their families whose livelihoods depend upon those works. The workers of Ravenscraig have done so much, not just in terms of campaigning, but in delivering productivity and production records. The communities that will be affected are linked together in their sadness—but although they are sad, they are far from beaten.
9.40 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has brought dignity back to the debate. He reminded us that 400 miles away many people are sad and have been deeply damaged by what has occurred. We must keep that memory constant.
My hon. Friend was also right to remind us that when Scholey promised that steel would continue to be made at Ravenscraig until 1994, Labour Members knew that that was not a reprieve, but a stay of execution. Sir Robert Scholey—never kind and gentle to Scotland—thought that that was how long he would need in Lanarkshire. That was his pessimistic estimate because he wanted out of Lanarkshire. The Government's principal fault lies in their running of the economy, which was such as to surpass even the pessimism of Sir Robert. The economy was run down to the extent that Sir Robert felt that he could move out two years before his pessimistic promise.
The Government must come to terms with their guilt. The decision has been put down to market conditions, but a market does not just occur. A market is constructed mainly by Government policies. The recession that the Government have created is the reason, above all, why we are here on this sad night.
We must look ahead at what we can do. We would not start from here. It is a tragic point from which to start. We would certainly not give any promises that we cannot deliver.
590
My memory of tonight is of the quiet dignity of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). Motherwell has been served well by its Members of Parliament. I shall remember the quiet dignity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has pursued this issue for a decade or more. He is constantly seeking solutions.
A strange absence from the debate has been talk about private sector leadership and the enterprise culture, of which we heard so much in 1988 and 1989. What has happened to them? Why are they not mentioned now? Now we are thrown back, as we always knew that we would be, on the need for public sector intervention.
We must obviously carry on seeking a buyer, and we must give every encouragement to that buyer if one can be found. Another striking thing about my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South—and all good wishes to him—is that he has more ideas than are produced from all the resources of the Government.
The enterprise zone concept must be pursued with all energy, not picked up again whenever bad news appears. The Government are jerked into activity only when there is bad news. There is no zeal about them. We must stop all dishonesty about capital involvement, an issue to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred. There must be nothing tricky about the resources that will be put in. We must be told clearly just what are the new resources.
We must examine the capital infrastructure that is needed, and let it be clear that there is no political game playing between regional councils and the Government over roads. We must demand an environmental clean-up from British Steel. That is the least we should have. British Steel must go beyond the legal minimum, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he is persuading, even forcing, the company to do that.
We must get the full educational and training resources of the country into Lanarkshire. There must be a full analysis of the job and investment prospects. Let us abandon the pretence that the local enterprise companies can cope with education and training. In their employment training and youth training programmes, they are concerned with 2 to 3 per cent. of the work force and the available-to-work force. The local enterprise companies are involved with only 20 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are on YT schemes. That is not the way forward with education and training in the context of which we are speaking. Reference has been made to the possibility of upgrading the education institutions of Lanarkshire and making sure that the universities and colleges in the area are fully involved.
We must review the rundown of the East Kilbride development corporation. It is extraordinary that the Government are not prepared to look at that issue. What dogma is behind that? What difficulties are there between Scottish Enterprise, the local development agency and East Kilbride development corporation?
It is sheer folly for the message to be sent out in respect of the East Kilbride development corporation, "We are winding down." It is extraordinary that that should he happening now in Lanarkshire, which has the most successful job development agency in the country. The message now going out reads, "We are winding down and shutting up," even though that body last year, in the dire conditions of the time, attracted 1,100 jobs and £34 million

591
of capital to Lanarkshire. Yet the Government will not even address the question whether the East Kilbride development corporation can be kept going.
The Scottish Office must take full responsibility for that state of affairs, for it has acted with truly Thatcherite zeal. Even the present Government could not have done more. The contrast, on the issue of public expenditure, between the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office is truly remarkable. The Welsh Development Agency budget went up 98 per cent. between 1979 and 1990. The Scottish Development Agency budget, in the same 11-year period, stagnated; it increased by only 2.4 per cent. That happened at the choice of the Government.
When the Welsh had steel closures in the early 1980s, at present-day prices an additional £187 million went to the Welsh areas, and good luck to them for that. When Scottish Enterprise was set up—we knew that it would happen—there was a cut of nearly £200 million in its budget. Its budget in Lanarkshire, until there was a protest, was cut from £7 million to £4.2 million, a reduction of 42 per cent. The original allocation to the Lanarkshire development agency went down from £7.3 million to £4.2 million. There was then a protest and the Government realised—again, in embarrassment—that the figure should be adjusted, and so it was. Unless the Government are constantly brought to face the problems, they will back away from and neglect Lanarkshire.
The Government have failed Lanarkshire. Last Monday, the Secretary of State pretended that the closure of Ravenscraig would add just 1 per cent. To Lanarkshire's unemployment rate. Over a period of 11 years, Motherwell lost 60 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs, and Lanarkshire as a whole lost 40 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs before the closure of Ravenscraig. In the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area in 1979, male unemployment was 10 per cent. It is now 20 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's derelict position on training in Lanarkshire. The Government should go, and they should take their guilt with them.
9.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): This is an important debate. In one sense, it has been two debates. In the first debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House made constructive and reasoned suggestions about the future of Lanarkshire. Those hon. Members included my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who rightly pointed to the dangers of intervention. I do not think that he was arguing about whether it was wrong for a Conservative Government to have been instrumental in setting up Ravenscraig in the first place. Speeches of Opposition Members also contained constructive and reasoned suggestions. The comments of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about the Ravenscraig site and the enterprise zone were correct. I shall come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) if I have sufficient time. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the points made by the Rev. John Potter. I was glad to meet the Rev. John Potter this
592
morning. He has made a major contribution and I agree substantially with the points which he made to me and which the hon. Member for Hamilton made to the House.
The second debate has been political. I have seldom seen the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) under such pressure. He is normally the most courteous of Members in giving way, but he would not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who not only represented a steelworks but was on the Committee that considered the British Steel Bill, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) so effectively referred in his speech. That saves me from repeating exactly the same in mine.
The Labour Members who made the political arguments in this debate were bowled middle stump. Either they are socialists, in which case they must agree with the thoughts and philosophy of the hon. Member for Govan, or they are loyal followers of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be having all sorts of meetings tonight because each time Labour Members were challenged about the quotation in this morning's Financial Times they said that they had had a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and had checked the policies. There will be a U-turn tomorrow, so we shall see the right hon. Gentleman's next argument.
Opposition Members cannot tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have intervened in some undefined way given that the Leader of the Opposition said—I remind them of the quotation—that the steel industry did not need
"some civil servant or minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do."
That is what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, and the hon. Member for Garscadden has been bowled middle stump, not by Conservative Members but by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman seems to have the rather odd view that either one is in favour of total intervention and state control in every situation, despite the practicalities, or one does nothing at all. That is the choice that he is presenting. Does it not occur to him that there are some politicians who, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition advocates in that article, look at intervention where it is justified and act in the way that the circumstances demand? That is what we have been advocating throughout and that is what we want to do now. We do not believe in going down the public ownership road when there clearly is a market problem and there clearly is no case for it, but we do not believe in sitting on our backsides and doing nothing, as the bewhiskered Under-Secretary is advocating.
Mr. Stewart: I should like to be a fly on the wall at the forthcoming meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Garscadden when they try to sort out what the Labour party's policy actually is.
Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
Mr. Stewart: I will give way, but it will have to be for the last time.
Mr. Clarke: The Minister will recall that I gave way in a five-minute speech, so he is not over-generous. Does he accept that the fundamental issue of the Secretary of

593
State's role between 20 December and 9 January was what he did or did not do? Why did he not remind British Steel that we were given not a letter, not a promise, not a meeting, but a guarantee? What happened to the guarantee?
Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend of course asked for and was given a meeting with the chairman of British Steel and his colleagues. We went through the guarantee, which was always subject, of course, to market conditions. But I will tell the hon. Member what would have been the case if the Labour Government had been elected last October. The Labour Secretary of State for Scotland would not have been told anything by British Steel, because it would not have trusted a Labour Government to keep the matters confidential.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Stewart: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman would not give way more than once.
I turn to the constructive points that have been made from both sides of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and for Tayside, North, the hon. Member for Gordon and, of course, the constituency Members and others have rightly paid tribute to the Ravenscraig work force for their hard work, effort and endeavour. I, too, pay tribute to them, and I hope that when the furore has died down British Steel will lose no opportunity to pay the same tribute—[Interruption.] It is not a matter for laughter. It is crucial for the future of Lanarkshire that firms are encouraged to come into Lanarkshire and that the message that the work force are skilled and dedicated and that this closure was no fault of theirs gets across to the whole industrial community.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and other hon. Members talked about the future. I entirely accept that we must look at mechanisms that will follow up the success of the Lanarkshire working party. I am discussing that with Lanarkshire development agency. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton that not just economic consultants and economists have expertise and that we must involve the whole community.
What have we had from the Opposition? We have had
from the Scottish National party a policy that is
unworkable and, from the Labour party, no policy at all. The Labour party gave not £1-worth of extra commitment to Lanarkshire tonight. I urge the House to support the Government's amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 242.

Division No.1 54]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Allen, Graham

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

Alton, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Blunkett, David

Armstrong, Hilary

Boateng, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bradley, Keith

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Barron, Kevin

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Beith, A. J.

Callaghan, Jim

Bell, Stuart

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bellotti, David

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

594

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Canavan, Dennis

Kilfoyle, Peter

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Kirkwood, Archy

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Lambie, David

Clelland, David

Lamond, James

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Leadbitter, Ted

Cohen, Harry

Leighton, Ron

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lewis, Terry

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Litherland, Robert

Corbett, Robin

Livingstone, Ken

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cousins, Jim

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cox, Tom

Loyden, Eddie

Crowther, Stan

McAllion, John

Cryer, Bob

McCartney, Ian

Cummings, John

Macdonald, Calum A.

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McFall, John

Cunningham, Dr John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Darling, Alistair

McKelvey, William

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McLeish, Henry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Maclennan, Robert

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

McMaster, Gordon

Dewar, Donald

McWilliam, John

Dixon, Don

Madden, Max

Dobson, Frank

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Doran, Frank

Marek, Dr John

Douglas, Dick

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Eadie, Alexander

Martlew, Eric

Eastham, Ken

Maxton, John

Enright, Derek

Meacher, Michael

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Meale, Alan

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Michael, Alun

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fatchett, Derek

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fisher, Mark

Morgan, Rhodri

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Flynn, Paul

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mowlam, Marjorie

Foster, Derek

Mullin, Chris

Foulkes, George

Murphy, Paul

Fraser, John

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Fyfe, Maria

O'Brien, William

Galbraith, Sam

Parry, Robert

Galloway, George

Patchett, Terry

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Pendry, Tom

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

George, Bruce

Prescott, John

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Primarolo, Dawn

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Quin, Ms Joyce

Gordon, Mildred

Radice, Giles

Gould, Bryan

Randall, Stuart

Graham, Thomas

Redmond, Martin

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Reid, Dr John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Robertson, George

Grocott, Bruce

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hain, Peter

Rogers, Allan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rooker, Jeff

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rooney, Terence

Haynes, Frank

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Henderson, Doug

Rowlands, Ted

Hinchliffe, David

Ruddock, Joan

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Salmond, Alex

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Sheerman, Barry

Home Robertson, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hood, Jimmy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Short, Clare

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Sillars, Jim

Howells, Geraint

Skinner, Dennis

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Snape, Peter

Illsley, Eric

Soley, Clive

Ingram, Adam

Spearing, Nigel

Janner, Greville

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

595

Steinberg, Gerry

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Stephen, Nicol

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Stott, Roger

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Strang, Gavin

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wilson, Brian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winnick, David

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Turner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Vaz, Keith

Wray, Jimmy

Wallace, James

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wareing, Robert N.

Mrs. Llin Golding

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Mr. Thomas McAvoy

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Allason, Rupert

Evennett, David

Amess, David

Fallon, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Farr, Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Favell, Tony

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ashby, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Atkins, Robert

Fookes, Dame Janet

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baldry, Tony

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Freeman, Roger

Batiste, Spencer

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gale, Roger

Benyon, W.

Gardiner, Sir George

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bottomley, Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

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

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bowis, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

Gregory, Conal

Browne, John (Winchester)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Grist, Ian

Buck, Sir Antony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Burt, Alistair

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Chris

Hannam, Sir John

Butterfill, John

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

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Carttiss, Michael

Hawkins, Christopher

Cash, William

Hayes, Jerry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Chapman, Sydney

Hayward, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Churchill, Mr

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hill, James

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Conway, Derek

Hordern, Sir Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Couchman, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Janman, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dunn, Bob

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Kilfedder, James

Eggar, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

596

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Raffan, Keith

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rathbone, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Redwood, John

Knox, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Latham, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Lee, John (Pendle)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Lightbown, David

Rost, Peter

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Rowe, Andrew

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)>

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Lord, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sayeed, Jonathan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Madel, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Malins, Humfrey

Shelton, Sir William

Mans, Keith

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Maples, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marland, Paul

Shersby, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sims, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mates, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian.

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Speed, Keith

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Speller, Tony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Miscampbell, Norman

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Squire, Robin

Mitchell, Sir David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moate, Roger

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Monro, Sir Hector

Steen, Anthony

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stern, Michael

Moore, Rt Hon John

Stevens, Lewis

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Moss, Malcolm

Stokes, Sir John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Sumberg, David

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Summerson, Hugo

Nelson, Anthony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Norris, Steve

Viggers, Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waller, Gary

Page, Richard

Ward, John

Paice, James

Widdecombe, Ann

Patnick, Irvine

Wilkinson, John

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Patten, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Pawsey, James

Wood, Timothy

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Porter, David (Waveney)

Portillo, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Powell, William (Corby)

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Price, Sir David

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 195.

Division No. 55]

[10.11 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Allason, Rupert

Bendall, Vivian

Amess, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arbuthnot, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Body, Sir Richard

Ashby, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Atkins, Robert

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

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bowis, John

Baldry, Tony

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

597

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hordern, Sir Peter

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

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Buck, Sir Antony

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Budgen, Nicholas

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Burns, Simon

Hunter, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Irvine, Michael

Butler, Chris

Jack, Michael

Butterfill, John

Jackson, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Janman, Tim

Carrington, Matthew

Jessel, Toby

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Chope, Christopher

Key, Robert

Churchill, Mr

Kilfedder, James

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Conway, Derek

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knox, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Latham, Michael

Couchman, James

Lee, John (Pendle)

Cran, James

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lightbown, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Day, Stephen

Lord, Michael

Devlin, Tim

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Dickens, Geoffrey

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dorrell, Stephen

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Madel, David

Dover, Den

Malins, Humfrey

Dunn, Bob

Mans, Keith

Dykes, Hugh

Maples, John

Eggar, Tim

Marland, Paul

Emery, Sir Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Evennett, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fallon, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Farr, Sir John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Favell, Tony

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Miscampbell, Norman

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forman, Nigel

Mitchell, Sir David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Moate, Roger

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Monro, Sir Hector

Freeman, Roger

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

French, Douglas

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Fry, Peter

Morrison, Sir Charles

Gale, Roger

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gardiner, Sir George

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Gill, Christopher

Nelson, Anthony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Neubert, Sir Michael

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Norris, Steve

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Page, Richard

Gregory, Conal

Paice, James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Patnick, Irvine

Grist, Ian

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hague, William

Pawsey, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Portillo, Michael

Hannam, Sir John

Powell, William (Corby)

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

Raffan, Keith

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Rathbone, Tim

Harris, David

Redwood, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Hayward, Robert

Riddick, Graham

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Rowe, Andrew

Hill, James

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

598

Sayeed, Jonathan

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Sumberg, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Summerson, Hugo

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Shelton, Sir William

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Shersby, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Sims, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Ward, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Warren, Kenneth

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

Speller, Tony

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Winterton, Nicholas

Squire, Robin

Wood, Timothy

Stanbrook, Ivor

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stern, Michael

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Stevens, Lewis

Mr. Tim Boswell.

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Enright, Derek

Allen, Graham

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Alton, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fatchett, Derek

Armstrong, Hilary

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fisher, Mark

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Flannery, Martin

Ashton, Joe

Flynn, Paul

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Foster, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Foulkes, George

Beith, A. J.

Fraser, John

Bellotti, David

Fyfe, Maria

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Galbraith, Sam

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

Galloway, George

Bermingham, Gerald

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Blunkett, David

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Boateng, Paul

George, Bruce

Bradley, Keith

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Gordon, Mildred

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Gould, Bryan

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Graham, Thomas

Callaghan, Jim

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grocott, Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Harman, Ms Harriet

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Haynes, Frank

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Henderson, Doug

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cohen, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hood, Jimmy

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corbett, Robin

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howells, Geraint

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cryer, Bob

Illsley, Eric

Cummings, John

Ingram, Adam

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Janner, Greville

Cunningham, Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Darling, Alistair

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Dewar, Donald

Lambie, David

Dixon, Don

Lamond, James

Dobson, Frank

Leadbitter, Ted

Doran, Frank

Lewis, Terry

Douglas, Dick

Litherland, Robert

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Livingstone, Ken

Eadie, Alexander

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Eastham, Ken

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

599

Loyden, Eddie

Rooney, Terence

McAllion, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCartney, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

Macdonald, Calum A.

Ruddock, Joan

McFall, John

Salmond, Alex

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Sheerman, Barry

McKelvey, William

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McLeish, Henry

Short, Clare

McMaster, Gordon

Sillars, Jim

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Madden, Max

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

Marek, Dr John

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Soley, Clive

Martlew, Eric

Spearing, Nigel

Maxton, John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Meacher, Michael

Steinberg, Gerry

Meale, Alan

Stephen, Nicol

Michael, Alun

Stott, Roger

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Strang, Gavin

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Rhodri

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wallace, James

Mowlam, Marjorie

Walley, Joan

Mullin, Chris

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Murphy, Paul

Wareing, Robert N.

O'Brien, William

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Parry, Robert

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Patchett, Terry

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Prescott, John

Wilson, Brian

Primarolo, Dawn

Winnick, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Radice, Giles

Worthington, Tony

Randall, Stuart

Wray, Jimmy

Redmond, Martin

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Reid, Dr John

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, George

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Rogers, Allan

Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's response to the announcement by British Steel of its decision to close Ravenscraig; acknowledges the extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, the Lanarkshire Development Agency, and a range of other public and private bodies; welcomes the Government's commitment of some £120 million since the beginning of March 1991 for economic development and training in Lanarkshire; and supports the proposal by Her Majesty's Government that an enterprise zone be established in North Lanarkshire.

PETITION

  Wooler Green (Shop)
  10.23 pm
  Mr. David Evans: I am privileged to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of 710 residents of Woolmer Green in my constituency. The petition concerns the proposed closure of the local village shop because of the approval by the local authority, Welwyn and Hatfield council, of a planning application. The petitioners oppose it on the ground that it would deprive the vicinity of a vital amenity. That will bring undue hardship upon the people of Woolmer Green, especially the village's many senior citizens. The petition concludes:
  Whereupon your petitioners pray that your honourable House will support the view of your petitioners, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.24 pm
Mr. Tony Speller: I start by quoting from my maiden speech nearly 13 years ago:
"I should like to start my career in this House by paying a deep and sincere tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Jer Thorpe. As a constituency Member, he was without equal, and there is no doubt of the respect and affection in which he was and is still held in our constituency."—[Official Report, 22 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 941.]
Mr. Thorpe is now ill with Parkinson's disease, a fact known and regretted throughout north Devon and further. This debate in public is about Parkinson's disease and a particular experimental treatment. It is also about the health service treatment of Mr. Thorpe, since it was his doctors who approached me, and his wish, not mine, which has put the matter into the public domain.
The Parkinson's Diseases Society has been in touch with me, and I am grateful to its chief executive, Mrs. Mary Baker, both for information and for helping me understand the problems. She advises me that the treatment involves the implant of brain cells from an aborted foetus which must be 10 to 11 weeks' gestation.
The Litchdon medical centre is a practice of eight doctors in Barnstaple. All eight doctors signed a letter on 13 December to the Secretary of State for Health and asked me to pass it on. They copied the letter to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and also to the North Devon community health council.
I must read the letter, written by Dr. Beer on behalf of the practice, because it is the crux and the purpose of the debates:
"The Right Hon. Jeremy Thorpe recently underwent a new and innovative neurosurgical operation carried out by Professor Hitchcock, Consultant Neurosurgeon at the Midland Centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology, Nottingham, as a National Health Service patient. Mr. Thorpe was originally referred to Professor Hitchcock by his London neurologist. Professor Hitchcock agreed that neurosurgery could he beneficial. He was told that there was a waiting list and that he must be referred by his General Practitioner, as a National Health Service patient, in order that the local Health Authority provide the necessary funding, as the operation is only available on the N.H.S.
Mr. Thorpe then approached me, his General Practitioner here in Barnstaple and asked to be referred to Professor Hitchcock. I contacted the North Devon District Health Authority and asked for an extra-contractual referral to be made for this operation. This request was turned down because of the cost and the fact that the present 30 per cent. success rate of this operation did not represent 'value for money'. Mr. Thorpe then contacted the Health Authority himself and pleaded his case to no avail. Because Mr. Thorpe resides for part of the time in London, he decided to try another Health Authority. He registered with a G.P. near his London home who contacted his District Health Authority who readily agreed to finance his brain operation as an extra contractual referral, and surgery was carried out within a short space of time. Mr. Thorpe is the 47th patient to receive this form of new treatment and he tells us that his medical condition has dramatically improved.
In the new document—The Patients' Charter—there are listed seven existing rights; the first of which states: 'Every citizen has the right to receive health care .on the basis of clinical need regardless of the ability to pay'. The fact that one Health Authority felt unable to fund this operation and yet another Health Authority felt able to provide the necessary monies does call into question whether the Patients' Charter does actually work. The Midland Centre for Neurosurgery
602
and Neurology is the only centre in the United Kingdom able to provide such a pioneering operation which is only available through the N.H.S. If Mr. Thorpe had not been in a fortunate position of being able to register with a G.P. in a different Health Authority, he would not have had his operation. This situation has enormous implications for all patients who require an extra contractual referral based on clinical need. We look forward to your reply."
That letter was signed by Dr. Richard Beer and the other seven doctors in the practice.
I forwarded the letter to my right hon. Friend and informed Dr. Beer that that had been done. In addition, I asked the practice about the change of GP, since few of my constituents have the advantage of choice about which authority they use. Being unaware of the details within the North Devon health authority, and seeking in no way to make critical judgments myself, I obtained a copy of the minute of the health authority. It reads:
"The director of medical services … drew members' attention to a recent article in the British Medical Journal which highlighted that, out of 18 clients treated, the 22.2 per cent. success rate related only to those clients under the age of 50 years. The members re-emphasised the decision, taken at a previous meeting, not to pay for this treatment."
The committee made a judgment, based on the recommendation of its director. The Secretary of State replied:
"In the case Dr. Beer refers to, the treatment involved is a relatively new and largely unproven one. A recent British Medical Journal article indicated that in a survey of eighteen patients treated in this way only four"—
that is the 22.2 per cent.—
"showed any significant improvement."
My right hon. Friend then said:
"I understand that in this instance Dr. Beer's request was considered at some length by an assessment panel of six which included the District Chair, Chief Executive and District Director of Public Health. The decision was I am told based on clinical grounds because of the unproven nature of the treatment. District Health Authorities have a difficult task in deciding priorities for treatment within available resources. I would not expect these decisions to be uniform across the country because of different local circumstances and the likelihood of different clinical views on the efficacy of particular treatment. The North Devon HA took clinical advice in assessing this individual case and on the basis of that advice decided that this ECR was not a high priority for funding. I would not see this however in any way abrogating General Practitioner's basic rights of referral."
My right hon. Friend ends his letter by saying:
"I am pleased to learn that following the granting of an ECR by Parkside HA Mr. Thorpe has received treatment and that it is proving beneficial."
Shortly afterwards, I received another letter from the practice, dated 20 January. As time is short, I shall just make the four points referred to in the letter. The practice reiterated its concern about having the freedom to refer patients according to clinical need. The practice pointed out that the criteria upon which Mr. Thorpe's referral was turned down are invalid and says:
"The NHS changes must not be allowed to stymie new medical treatments, otherwise",
it asks,
"how can pioneering work and advances take place? An initial success rate of 4 out of 18 patients is a rate of almost 25 per cent. and this, for a new treatment in the most difficult cases, would be very acceptable."
The practice is also concerned that the standard of care may depend on which area a person lives in and what money is available. The fourth point is:
"Why should a Health Authority turn down an unproven treatment when it holds contracts with Homeopathic Hospitals and is prepared to pay for such treatment to be carried out?"

603
The letter concludes:
"We feel that this situation would not have arisen if ERCs were not included in health authority budgets. We would recommend that these should be taken out of such budgets."
Apart from the issues that affect Mr. Thorpe personally, questions are raised by this form of treatment that affect any national health service patient who is similarly afflicted. I have four questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, is this treatment, when successful, likely to reduce the effects of the disease, or does it have only a palliative effect, in that side effects are avoided from powerful drugs that would otherwise have to be used?
Secondly, is this treatment acceptable under medical ethics? We are talking about the brain tissue of an aborted foetus whose gestation period has to be between 10 and 11 weeks. There is the possibility of pressure being brought to bear to produce an aborted foetus at that stage for the treatment. I do not pretend to know what the ethics committee would say about that. Does my hon. Friend hope that it may be a valuable treatment, to be made available, if finally proven, to sufferers of Parkinson's disease throughout the health service?
Thirdly, if the treatment is available currently, upon clinical decision, under the national health service, should it not be available to patients in north Devon as readily as it is available to patients in London?
Fourthly, extra-contractual referrals are clearly at the discretion of the health authority concerned, but surely clinical decision must be the main criterion. While this treatment remains at the experimental stage, may I suggest that the logical position is that prospective patients who have been referred onward by the general practitioner and consultant should be selected—probably by Professor Hitchcock himself—and financed centrally as part of the experimental budget? It is unreasonable that local health authorities should have to compare routine needs—for hernia operations, or knee and hip joint operations—with the problems surrounding experimental surgery, of which they must have no direct knowledge.
Sufferers from Parkinson's disease are many, and their problems are hateful and hurtful. I now know that they are not automatically exempt from prescription charges, and I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the recommendation of the Parkinson's Disease Society of the United Kingdom, which I support, that sufferers should be exempt from prescription charges.
My constituents remember the dashing figure of Jeremy Thorpe. I take no pleasure in bringing this case before the House, although his example may well prove a catalyst to bring help to fellow sufferers.
The patients charter is a bold commitment from a strong Prime Minister who believes, as I do, in a one-class, first-class health service. I receive no complaints of substance about the excellent health service in north Devon; nor do I believe that it has exceeded its authority in any way. But the nagging thought remains—why "Yes" in London, but "No" in Devon if the patient and the clinical advice were the same?
10.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) began by drawing attention to
604
the fact that he has always been generous in his praise of the constituency record of Jeremy Thorpe. Although neither my hon. Friend nor I were Members of the House when Mr. Thorpe was a Member, we both remember that, as my hon. Friend said, he was a "dashing figure" in the politics of the 1970s. As my hon. Friend rightly said, Parkinson's disease is a distressing condition, and it will be a cause of sadness to all hon. Members that Mr. Thorpe has come to suffer from it. I do not believe that the House would expect me to comment on Mr. Thorpe's particular case, beyond expressing the sympathy of the House for his condition. The health service takes seriously the issues of confidentiality which surround the treatment of its patients, and it would be wrong for me to discuss in the House the details of Mr. Thorpe's individual treatment.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, however, the handling of Mr. Thorpe's case raises some important general principles about the management of the health service. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify any uncertainty that may have resulted from this case, the specific circumstances which lay behind it and the way in which it had to be decided. I refer especially to the fact that Mr. Thorpe had access to two general practitioners and thus to two separate decision-making processes, which arrived at different conclusions.
I begin by repeating the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North on 14 January, that in an organisation the size of the health service, which deals with so many patient contacts, it should not be surprising—indeed, it should be welcomed—that we do not seek to impose total uniformity on every single decision that is made about the treatment of patients across the country. To attempt to do so, even if it were possible——
Mr. James Wallace rose—
Mr. Dorrell: If I may, I should like to develop my argument because there are several aspects to it.
I firmly believe that it would be impossible to deliver that objective, even had we wanted it. But even if it were possible, it would be actively undesirable to seek to impose precise uniformity in relation to every decision taken about the treatment of health service patients, because that would mean that no individual within the health service could try a different approach without first having had it cleared through a myriad of different committees. We seek to establish in the health service a system of decision-making which allows different people to reach different conclusions subject to some basic principles which clearly must underlie the delivery of socialised medicine. Provided that they are consistent with the basic principles set out, as my hon. Friend rightly said, in among other places, the patients charter, the fact that different decisions may be reached in different parts of the country is not surprising. Indeed, one of the benefits or desirable aspects of the health service is that different clinicians and managers can try out different alternative approaches.
The fact that we recognise that different people in the health service will produce different answers to the same questions is manifest in the fact that different health authorities will reach different conclusions, based on their assessment of the health needs of their resident populations and of their local priorities.. They will also

605
reach conclusions about the allocation of resources and their priority in terms of the use of resources to address the specific health needs of their local populations.
Health authorities will reach those conclusions under the reformed health service in close consultation with their general practitioners. The intention is that the decisions that health authorities take about the placing of contracts should reflect the views of GPs and also the health authority's assessment of the district's local health priorities. However, once the health authority has placed those contracts in those terms, we come to the questions which determine the decisions about the honouring of extra-contractual referrals. That is the issue which lies at the heart of Mr. Thorpe's case.
The Secretary of State has asked me specifically to clarify the principles which underlie the administration of ECRs within the reformed health service. When speaking to the council of the Royal College of General Practitioners on 9 May last year he said:
"We have consistently repeated the principle that the reforms should not cut across GPs' freedom of referral. That remains the case. If, for clinical reasons, a GP wishes to refer a patient to a hospital that is not contracted to provide a service to the GP's district, the GP must be able to do so."
That is a direct quotation from a speech made by my right hon. Friend. The Government regard themselves as bound by that principle, and we expect to see it carried out by the management of the health service. As that is the political sphere given to the health service—it is a public service accountable through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House—the management of the health service has set out clearly how that principle should be applied to the management of ECRs.
Paragraph 3.14 of the management document, "Contracts for Health Service Operational Principles", states:
"The DHA will not challenge the GP's choice of provider unless it can be shown that the proposed referral is wholly unjustified on clinical grounds, or where an alternative referral would be equally efficacious for the patient, taking into account the patient's wishes."
So the test that has to be applied before a health authority refuses an ECR is that the decision must be "wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds". The fact that that is the test does not detract from the fact that the health authority remains responsible for the management of the ECR budget. I disagree with my hon. Friend's constituents on this point. Once the authority has accepted that an individual ECR is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds, it remains a management responsibility of the health authority to balance the clinical priority of acceptance of a particular ECR against its budgetary considerations. The budgetary responsibility rests with the health authority.
The decision about an individual referral on clinical grounds, however—provided that it is not wholly unjustifiable—rests ultimately with the GP. I emphasise to the House that that has been made clear both in the speech of my right hon. Friend to the council of the Royal College of General Practitioners and in the management advice document issued by the management executive. So the principles cannot be regarded as being in any doubt.
My hon. Friend would then understandably say, "How does it come about, then, that North Devon health authority finds itself in the position that it does on this referral?" The best answer that I can give him is that the fact that Mr. Thorpe had available to him the escape route
606
of appealing to a health authority elsewhere in the country meant that the process was not carried to its conclusion in north Devon. Mr. Thorpe had available to him a quicker way to secure the referral that he was seeking to the unit in Birmingham, so the process was not finally concluded in north Devon. That is best illustrated by the fact that a similar case has been referred by another GP in north Devon to the same unit in Birmingham. Although the decision has not yet been made, that ECR is likely to be approved.
Although in theory we do not know how it would have turned out if that had been the only option available to Mr. Thorpe, we know that the principles are clearly set out in the health service management documents and at a political level by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
No one argues that the referral is wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds. Clearly the health authority does not argue that because it is about to honour a similar referral to the same unit in Birmingham. We do not know whether the process would have reached its conclusion if Mr. Thorpe had not had the alternative course open to him.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions about the treatment. He asked about its effectiveness, whether it would have a palliative effect, and how it would work. I am advised that if an implant is successful it would reduce the need for medication and would therefore reduce the likelihood of the side effects that may be caused by drug treatment. That is my advice, although I emphasise to my hon. Friend that I am not a clinician and he does not need to be told that.
My hon. Friend asked me about the medical ethics of the issue. The position is clear. All research or therapy of an innovative nature in the health service, especially that involving foetuses or foetal material, requires the approval of a local research ethics committee. Such committees are established at district health authority level and include medical and nursing staff, GPs and lay members. They provide independent advice to local management on the ethical acceptability of any research proposed.
My hon. Friend asked why, if the treatment is available on clinical decision in London, it is not available in north Devon and 1 have dealt with that. He also asked what criteria should be applied in deciding priorities. Perhaps the best answer to that question is that we have recently established an NHS research and development directorate, under Professor Michael Peckham. Its programme will place emphasis on evaluations of the quality, effectiveness and cost of methods of disease prevention and treatment, and on research into the delivery and cost of health care. The answer to my hon. Friend's question rests with the new research and development directorate of the NHS management executive.
Mr. Wallace: In the letter from the Secretary of State which the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) read out, as well as saying that differences are likely to arise because of different clinical views, he said that they may arise because of different local circumstances. Can the Minister say whether those might include resources? Secondly, while I heard what he said about the fact that, in the case of Mr. Thorpe, the process in north Devon was not exhausted, the theoretical position remains that the treatment may not have been available in north Devon, but was made available in London by virtue of the fact that Mr. Thorpe had two residences and was registered in

607
two places. Does he accept that it is unsatisfactory that that could have happened? Patients who are very ill may find that they are under pressure to find another place to register. Given their state of health, that is not desirable.
Mr. Dorrell: Those two questions have the same answer. I stress that the principle which underlies the acceptance of a particular ECR is that any health authority will, ultimately, accept an ECR that is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds. A health authority retains, of course, the responsibility for ordering its own budgetary priorities.
It has never been the principle of any health service management that the acceptance of a referral means that the person referred will be seen tomorrow. To balance demand against available resources is a continuing function of health service management intra-contractually and extra-contractually. If a referral is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds, it is not open to a health authority, wherever it is, ultimately to refuse to honour an ECR.
We would actively encourage health authorities to ensure that their resources were used effectively. If an ECR is made that is surprising to the clinicians working in a health authority, questions should be asked to ensure that it represents a fair use of resources. The GP who made that referral should understand the options available and the implications of his referral. If the GP insists on that referral, the health authority will honour it, provided that it is not wholly unjustifiable on clinical grounds.
608
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North asked about prescription charges and whether sufferers from Parkinson's disease should be exempt from them. He will be aware that that has been the subject of a long-standing argument in the health service. We have sought to concentrate assistance with prescription charges on those whose incomes are such that the charges cause a problem. We have not sought to extend the list of conditions which entitle a sufferer to exemption from prescription charges. We offer help through our income-related system and through the season ticket system, which limits the cost of a prescription to an individual patient.
I emphasise that I do not believe that any individual or manager in the health service has done anything in this case which departs from the principles upon which the health service is built. The district health authority received an unusual ECR and in those circumstances it was entitled to ensure that the use of resources involved in that decision was justified. It was also entitled to ensure that the GP who made the referral understood the implications of his decision.
The process in this case did not reach its logical conclusion because Mr. Thorpe—I commend him on his ingenuity, a quality with which the nation knows he is amply endowed—found a way to secure the necessary care. Nothing that I have read about the case leads me to the conclusion that anything untoward happened or that the basic and important principle of the GP's right to refer has been undermined.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  "Juliette"
  "Juliette"
  Mr. Oliver Pryce
  Mr. Oliver Pryce
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  De Lorean
  De Lorean
TRANSPORT
  Port of Tilbury
  Port of Tilbury
  Cornelis Johanna
  Cornelis Johanna
  Coastguard Service
  Coastguard Service
  Traffic
  Traffic
NATIONAL FINANCE
  VAT
  VAT
  Executive Agencies
  Executive Agencies
  Central Unit on Purchasing
  Central Unit on Purchasing
ENVIRONMENT
  Navigation Authorities
  Navigation Authorities
  Halcrow Fox
  Halcrow Fox
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Oxleas Wood
  Oxleas Wood
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Unitary Development, Tyne and Wear
  Unitary Development, Tyne and Wear
  Building Regulations (Fire)
  Building Regulations (Fire)
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Renovation Grants
  Renovation Grants
  Levy, London Boroughs
  Levy, London Boroughs
  Education Spending
  Education Spending
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  RECHAR
  RECHAR
  Local Government Legislation
  Local Government Legislation
ENERGY
  Oil Seed Rape
  Oil Seed Rape
  Petroleum Engineering Directorate
  Petroleum Engineering Directorate
  Plastic Piping
  Plastic Piping
  Electricity Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
  Coal Privatisation
  Coal Privatisation
  Vale of Pickering (Gas)
  Vale of Pickering (Gas)
  Electricity Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
  South Africa (Oil Exports)
  South Africa (Oil Exports)
  Dounreay
  Dounreay
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Pollution, Russia
  Pollution, Russia
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Honours
  Honours
  EC Heads of State
  EC Heads of State
  Farmland
  Farmland
  Legislation (Repeal)
  Legislation (Repeal)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Young Claimants
  Young Claimants
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Disability
  Disability
  Industrial Services Consortium
  Industrial Services Consortium
  Mr. Robert Ingram
  Mr. Robert Ingram
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Trawlers
  Trawlers
  Decommissioning
  Decommissioning
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Auditing Firms
  Auditing Firms
  Mr. Redwood: No.
  Mr. Redwood: No.
  Instruments of Torture
  Instruments of Torture
  Company Directors
  Company Directors
  Auditors
  Auditors
  James Ferguson Holdings plc
  James Ferguson Holdings plc
  Accidents at Work
  Accidents at Work
  Bankers' Fees
  Bankers' Fees
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Expo 92
  Expo 92
WALES
  Fish Farms
  Fish Farms
  Pembroke Power Station
  Pembroke Power Station
  Housing
  Housing
  Student Support
  Student Support
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Organisations
  International Organisations
  EC Regional Policy
  EC Regional Policy
  Mrs. Nazir Begum
  Mrs. Nazir Begum
  Official Visits
  Official Visits
  Namibia
  Namibia
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.
  Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.
EMPLOYMENT
  Bridging Allowance
  Bridging Allowance
  Disability
  Disability
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Colleges
  Colleges
  Grant-maintained Schools
  Grant-maintained Schools
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drugs (Prison Searches)
  Drugs (Prison Searches)
  Carl Bridgewater
  Carl Bridgewater
  Children's Rights Convention
  Children's Rights Convention
  Prison Service (Industrial Relations)
  Prison Service (Industrial Relations)
  Asylum
  Asylum
  Bail Offenders
  Bail Offenders
  Vehicle Security
  Vehicle Security
  Derek Bentley
  Derek Bentley
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Criminal Activity
  Criminal Activity
  Prison Building
  Prison Building
  Police Cells
  Police Cells
  Firemen
  Firemen
  Humberside Police
  Humberside Police
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Murder Statistics
  Murder Statistics
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Prisoners (Medical Checks)
  Prisoners (Medical Checks)
  Ports Records
  Ports Records
  Criminal Intelligence
  Criminal Intelligence
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  European Police Co-operation
  European Police Co-operation
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Ports Administration System
  Ports Administration System
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Assaults on Police
  Assaults on Police
  Opium Derivatives
  Opium Derivatives
  Operation Container
  Operation Container
  Mr. Sohail Yousaf
  Mr. Sohail Yousaf
  Police Statistics
  Police Statistics
  Mr. Akhtar Zaman
  Mr. Akhtar Zaman
  ESDA Testing
  ESDA Testing
  Travellers
  Travellers
SCOTLAND
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Royal Navy Reserve
  Royal Navy Reserve
  Dental Anaesthesia
  Dental Anaesthesia
  Shettleston Health Centre
  Shettleston Health Centre
  Health Boards Circular
  Health Boards Circular
  Limestone Pavement
  Limestone Pavement
  Fish Farms
  Fish Farms
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Fire Regulations
  Fire Regulations
  Forestry Commission Land
  Forestry Commission Land
  FSAs
  FSAs
  Islay (Geese)
  Islay (Geese)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  British Steel
  British Steel
HEALTH
  Dental Anaesthesia
  Dental Anaesthesia
  Bio Products Laboratory
  Bio Products Laboratory
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Genetic Research
  Genetic Research
  Diagnostic Equipment
  Diagnostic Equipment
  Private Health Insurance
  Private Health Insurance
  London Ambulance Service
  London Ambulance Service
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Dementia
  Dementia
  Child Health
  Child Health
DEFENCE
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Building 220, Harwell
  Building 220, Harwell
  "Secrets of the Sands"
  "Secrets of the Sands"
  Rescue Helicopters
  Rescue Helicopters
  Marine Markers
  Marine Markers
  Spithead Marker
  Spithead Marker
  Nuclear Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Nuclear Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Hafnium
  Hafnium
  Nuclear Weapons Safety Review
  Nuclear Weapons Safety Review
  Civilian Employees
  Civilian Employees
  Kirkcudbright Range
  Kirkcudbright Range
  Forces Benevolent Funds
  Forces Benevolent Funds
  Faslane Submarine Base
  Faslane Submarine Base
  MV Polar Circle
  MV Polar Circle
  Woolwich Garrison
  Woolwich Garrison
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Menwith Hill Station
  Menwith Hill Station
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Industrial Tribunals: Hearing Delays
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to eliminate delays in hearings before industrial tribunals of unfair dismissal and other cases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, to deal with the high level of applications Her Majesty's Government increased the budget for the industrial tribunals by over £2 million in the current financial year, enabling more chairmen and administrative staff to be recruited. Measures are also being taken to improve efficiency.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, is he aware that from figures issued by his department in October it would appear that only a small minority of cases are heard within six weeks? Most of them take between 15 to 26 weeks before they are heard. Is he also aware that his right honourable friend in the other place, in dealing with the Maastricht agreement, made the following statement:
"We have a comprehensive set of employment rights in law, and rapid and effective recourse to Tribunals for all those whose rights may have been infringed"?
Is that not inaccurate in the present circumstances?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I do not believe it is. I recognise that there will be some delay between the time the application is made and the case being heard. That is often a question of gathering the evidence together. The target remains that 60 per cent. of cases be heard within 12 weeks. Over 80 per cent. of the cases coming to a hearing do so within 26 weeks. The Answer I gave acknowledges the fact that there has been an increase in the number of cases.

Uniform Business Rate
3.3 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider mitigating the burden of the uniform business rate while the recession persists, given that the applicable rateable values in England and Wales were based on the high rentals prevailing in April 1988.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, rents in some sectors have fallen since the base date used for the 1990 revaluation. However, we have no plans to change the burden of non-domestic rates. Our
944
transitional arrangements are protecting many ratepayers from their final bills and giving them time to adjust to the new system. Once ratepayers have arrived at their final bills, their rates cannot increase by more than the rate of inflation. Changes in rents since the levels used in the 1990 revaluation will be taken fully into account when the next revaluation on non-domestic property is undertaken in 1995.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that full reply. However, does she agree that the valuations on which uniform business rates are payable were fixed during the somewhat artificial property boom of the spring of 1988 and are now totally unrealistic? Partly due to our ERM membership it may be years rather than months before property values regain their mid-1988 level, certainly in London and the South-East of England. Does the noble Baroness agree that while big businesses, with luck, may be able to pull through, for many small businesses the burden of the uniform business rate may literally be the last straw?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord that certainly there was a fixed point when valuations were made. Indeed, the valuations proved that some properties were a great deal more valuable at that point. However, it was deemed at the same time, which is important, that the yield from the business rate should remain the same, so there was no increase in the yield. Poundage was therefore adjusted to take account of that. The only anomaly that remains concerns those properties that were wrongly valued and for that there is an appeal system.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that an advantage of the uniform business rate is that it serves to dispel the illusion that the Conservative Party is the friend of the small businessman?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wholly disagree with that. The enemy of the small businessman was the high spending council, from which he is now protected.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the small businessman was protected from the high spending councils, why was it that the low spending councils were forced to increase their uniform business rate by large amounts? Is my noble friend aware that Liverpool charged high business rates and Guildford charged low? Liverpool has been rewarded for its profligacy and Guildford penalised for its sensible policy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is somewhat distorting the case. The valuation of business across the whole country was on the same basis. It was known that, by and large, businesses in the South and South-East were more affluent than businesses in the North and North-West. It is true that Liverpool was overcharging businesses and also true that low spending councils were being fair to businesses. We now have the best of all worlds. We have a system in place that is fair and provides

945
protection against any kind of profligate council by the fact that no business can be charged an increase greater than the rate of inflation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the operation of the unified business rate has dispelled the myth that it was high spending local authorities which led to high business rates? Is she aware that business now understands that the unified business rate has worked against business and led to many bankruptcies of small businesses? Is it not time that the Government realised their mistakes and handed business rates back to the local authorities where they properly belong?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has a short memory.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord does indeed have a short memory. Perhaps I can remind him that increases of rates to all businesses—small, medium and large—by some local authorities were extremely extortionate. An increase of 63 per cent. was made by one council; my own authority put up business rates and took £20 million from business and commerce in one year by a rate increase of 33 per cent. In those days businesses were fleeing from the High Streets of many of our inner cities. That does not happen any more because in law they have a protection that no increase can be greater than the rate of inflation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness will find that I have a long memory and that memory tells me that the reason for high business rates—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take it from me, will she understand and will she agree that the reason for high business rates was the reduction in government grant to local authorities from 59 per cent. to 40 per cent?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord and the Government will have to agree to differ about their interpretation of what happened. There was a direct correlation between the rate increases to business and commerce to high spending and profligacy in local authorities. That is now at an end and cannot happen again. The health and wealth of business and commerce as a whole are important to the Government nationally and I believe the present system is the best system to serve business and commerce well.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the indignation on both sides of the House indicate that perhaps the business rate or business taxes may be based with much greater equity on profit?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a number of factors are taken into account when the valuation is made.
946
Clearly the buoyancy of business in an area is one of those factors. If buoyancy is related to profit then at least there will be some account taken of it. That is why there was a difference between the affluence of the South, South East and South West as opposed to the rather less affluence of the North and North West.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was drawing attention was the fact that any valuation made at a specific time runs the risk of going out of date? Is not the problem of the Local Government Finance Bill which is before the House at the moment that the Government have drawn up bands for the valuation of residential property which will inevitably go out of date and be as meaningless and dangerous as the bands to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have gone into this matter in some detail. No doubt for many hours today and for another five days in dealing with the Local Government Finance Bill, the second point will be gone into in great detail. As to the first, any fixed point in time will be fair so long as it is applicable across the country. For the uniform business rate it is important because each business is valued separately and uniquely. It is important that there should be regular valuation. The next valuation is due in 1995.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness argued that businesses which felt that their 1988 valuation was excessive had the right of appeal. Is she aware that the appeal process is stretching into years rather than months? Is she further aware that even if businesses eventually obtain a reduction in their valuation, as I understand it they have no right to reclaim the excessive rates paid in the interim period? Can something be done about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the point that the noble Lord makes. My department is putting some pressure on the valuation office to clear the backlog of appeals. If there is a modification downwards, any funds lost in the interim will be paid with interest.

Spitting in Public
3.11 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will act to discourage people from spitting in the street.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, such disagreeable conduct is more suitably regulated by private decorum than by government intervention.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I agree with him. Is it not the case that although spitting can be excused in dire cases where people have to spit or perform some other personal habit which is disagreeable, it should be done discreetly? Is it not also the case that nowadays more

947
people spit repeatedly without consideration for others? Cannot the Government take a lead in the same way as they have concerning people who throw cola cans and litter? Will they bring to the attention of people who spit the potentially anti-social effects of their behaviour?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords would agree that it is offensive behaviour. However, there is a difference between spitting at people and spitting in the presence of people. Spitting directly at or on to somebody might, if one can so put it, be caught by the law. It could constitute a criminal offence. It could be an assault at common law which would carry a level 5 fine of £2,000 or six months' imprisonment or both. It could be caught as an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. If a court decided that such behaviour was threatening, abusive or insulting (in my judgment, it could be all three) and was likely to cause, or did cause, harassment, alarm or distress (it might also follow that all three of those matters apply) there would be a level 3 fine of £400. Alternatively, the behaviour could be caught as being likely to cause a breach of the peace. In that case a person could be bound over.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Earl old enough to remember, as I do, the notices in buses and tube trains—on the Continent, certainly, and, I believe, also in Britain—
saying "Spitting spreads TB"? Is not the appearance of the so-called killer mutant strains of the TB bug now a reason to consider reintroducing such notices?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my advice is that there is no medical or public health hazard which arises from spitting. The Department of Health regards the latest article which has appeared suggesting that there is a risk as inaccurate. My information is that there is no risk of contracting TB from exposure to somebody coughing or spitting in the street. I am old enough to remember the same things as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet; but whether I do remember them or not is another matter. There are plenty of examples of spitting being prohibited in other countries. For example, in Singapore it is an offence to eat or drink on the tube; it is an offence to chew gum; it is an offence to spit; and it is also an offence not to flush the lavatory. All are excellent inducements for people to carry out those functions or not to, but the Government do not intend at this moment to follow those measures.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that during Ramadan, which, as the noble Earl knows, begins in early March this year, strict Moslems are not meant to swallow even their own saliva, which is the reason why there is so much spitting in Moslem countries? Does that not present certain difficulties, given the religious composition of this country today?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the main difference was that in the example given by the noble Lord one was swallowing the saliva, but in the instance given by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, it was a question of ejecting it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that spitting can result in trespass to the person if it is done with sufficient accuracy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only say that I am reminded of a little ditty relating to Julius Caesar which I was taught when I was at school. It was:
"Julius Caesar let a greaser right across the street,
And hit Agrippa on the nipper
And knocked him off his seat".
Lord Rea: My Lords, while it is extremely difficult to cap that one, can the noble Earl remind me whether or not there was a song in the 1960s called, "No Spitting on the Bus"? Does the noble Earl agree that that habit has now become rather rare? Does he further agree that it would be a good idea to commission the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to write a song to deal with the present problem which he finds offensive?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is certainly an idea which the noble Viscount may care to follow. However, I can tell the noble Lord that there were conduct regulations in 1936 which created the specific offence of spitting on buses. Those regulations have now been replaced by the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 and it is no longer an offence.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that in the 1930s in the fair town of Manchester—I am sure that his noble friend Lord Wade recalls it—there were two notices in awkward juxtaposition. The messages said, "Do not spit" and "Use the ship canal".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that just shows the fertility of the imagination of the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the noble Earl consult the medical dictionary in the Library where he will see that TB can be spread by sputum? This is quite a serious question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I dare say that the book in the Library does say that. I have taken advice from a more current source and I am advised that it is not so.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, leaving aside the more draconian regulations in Singapore, is the noble Earl aware that in certain other countries—I recall that it happened in Poland where spitting in the street was prevalent—a government advertising campaign against the habit of spitting was very effective? Will the Government consider such action here?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that we have got to the state where we wish to use that kind of advertising in preference to other more suitable kinds of advertising.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there has been an improvement in your Lordships' House in this matter? I believe it is now 230 years since Lord Cobham showed his disapproval of Lord Harvey by spitting in his hat.

Liquidators' Fees: Taxation Proposal
3.19 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider instituting a procedure to allow the taxation of liquidators' fees and costs, along the lines of taxation of costs in judicial proceedings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, such a procedure, in essence, already exists. The Insolvency Act 1986 and the insolvency rules set out how liquidators' remuneration should be calculated and make provision for the setting of that remuneration by creditors, either through a liquidation committee or in general meetings. Creditors also have the power to make application to the court for an order to reduce remuneration which they consider excessive. Where creditors are not in a position to resolve the question of remuneration, it will be payable at a rate equivalent to that where an official receiver acts as liquidator unless the court directs otherwise.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full answer. However, does not he find it somewhat disturbing that one major firm of accountants failed to demonstrate its much vaunted independence and courage by certifying the accounts of companies known to be questionable as showing a true and fair view and then for another assistant firm of accountants to step in and charge scandalously high fees, as pre-preferential creditors, thus jeopardising the possibility of the ordinary creditors getting anything from what was left of the companies?
Lord Reay: My Lords, fees are a matter for the creditors or the court and the Government are not in a position to comment on the costs of any particular liquidation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is some public anxiety about this matter? Would he consider it advisable for either him, or his Ministers, to consult the appropriate professional accountancy bodies on this matter with a view to obtaining at any rate some reassurance from them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as regards the professional bodies—and in particular the Institute of Chartered Accountants—we see their role as being primarily to regulate the conduct of their members generally and doubt whether they could be expected to devise a tariff for liquidators' charges. Charges can vary enormously from case to case, as we have seen, reflecting the complexity of the work involved in different liquidations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in view of the very high costs associated with liquidation and also with administration and receivership, do the Government believe that it is right that accountancy firms—who, after all, have their major business as auditing firms—should be also in this business?
950
Would it not be right to separate out the auditing function so that accountancy firms can engage in auditing and other firms with this speciality can do liquidations and administrations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I had something to say on this question in the debate yesterday. However, in this context I must say that the court may appoint a provisional liquidator at the moment when the court is presented with a petition for a winding-up order. It is then the court that fixes the remuneration of the provisional liquidator according to the insolvency rules.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but I was not asking that particular question. I was asking him about the role of accountancy firms who also have departments which deal in liquidations and with administration and receivership. Is it right that one firm should cover those two activities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government's view Is that auditors should not take such appointments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case will the Government persuade the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland to introduce the necessary rules?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I shall be happy to look into that matter.

"Polar Circle"
3.25 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question, of which I have given private notice, namely: To ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions they have reached concerning the future of the "Polar Circle"?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I should like to announce today the Government's decision on a permanent replacement for HMS "Endurance".
"Polar Circle", a Norwegian built logistic support and scientific research ship, was chartered by the Government in October 1991 to carry out the programme planned for "Endurance" this season. The structural condition of HMS "Endurance" made it no longer safe for her to operate in ice, and she has been paid off from the Royal Navy. "Polar Circle" was commissioned into the Royal Navy in November last year, and set sail for the Antartic in early December. She is due to return in May at the end of her current patrol.
The contract under which we chartered "Polar Circle" gave us the option, exercisable until 24th January, to buy the ship or extend her charter. I said in your Lordships' House on 4th November that we would make our decision on how to support our long term commitment to the ice patrol task by that date, and I am able to announce that decision today.

951
Before making our decision, however, we undertook an extensive assessment of "Polar Circle's" operational performance in the Antartic. This has established to our satisfaction that she will prove a capable and worthy successor to HMS "Endurance". Therefore, the Government are to purchase "Polar Circle" as "Endurance's" long term replacement. We are notifying her owners, the Norwegian company, Rieber Shipping, that we intend to exercise the purchase option.
I informed your Lordships' House in November that, were "Polar Circle" to be retained permanently in the Navy, we would reconsider the name she would carry throughout her operational life. For obvious practical reasons, she will retain her current name for the rest of this season's deployment. Consideration of her future name can now begin and the Admiralty Board intends to make a decision by the time she returns to the United Kingdom. An announcement will follow that decision. As I have said before, "Endurance" is one of the names we will consider.
During this summer, we intend to make some minor modifications to the ship, principally to install further communications and hydrographic equipment, and also to improve her helicopter facility. These will enable her better to perform her tasks in future seasons.
I am conscious of the great importance attached by your Lordships to the ice patrol task. The Government have expressed their continuing commitment to the task, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that the purchase of "Polar Circle" exemplifies that commitment, and will be welcomed by your Lordships' House.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before I comment may I say how grateful I am to the noble Earl for his Statement and to Her Majesty's Government—particularly to the Leader of the House—in allowing this Question so that the House of Lords gets the first information? I am very grateful to him.
Is the noble Earl aware—and I know that he sometimes has a little difficulty in knowing what is going on; I do not mean that offensively—that as of today no less than three nations are bidding to buy the "Polar Circle"? There are the Italians, who have been there all along, the Indians, who want a ship of that exact description, and finally a Scandinavian joint expedition. I hear from the broker, Rieber Shipping, that anything less than an unqualified declaration of the options runs a very serious risk of the vessel being no longer available. We have 24 hours in which to exercise that option. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on whether he expects to be able to fulfil the time requirement.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, thinks that I have difficulty at times in knowing what is going on. However, in this case I can assure him, as I have already said, that we are committed to the purchase of "Polar Circle".
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we on these Benches congratulate the Government on their decision. Will they also accept—and I am sure the
952
noble Earl will accept—that it is due to persistent questioning from my noble friend Lord Shackleton and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that this information has been dragged out of the Government? In congratulating the Government, therefore, will the noble Earl please have the kindness to congratulate my noble friend Lord Shackleton for his persistence?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, naturally, and of course most willingly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. At the same time I congratulate many other Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Statement will give very great pleasure indeed? Will he join with the rest of your Lordships in indicating what a considerable part the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, played in securing this sensible decision from the Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I confirm what I said before. I know that your Lordships will be very pleased and grateful for the most prominent part played by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that there is widespread feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has shown remarkable wisdom, persistence and foresight in this matter? A good deal of trouble might have been saved if his advice had been taken earlier and more consistently.
The Government, in considering the re-christening of the new ship, might do well not to exclude calling it HMS "Lord Shackleton". I think the "Lord" will have to be included in order to deal with the problem of generations.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, all names will be taken into consideration, but as I said in my Answer the name HMS "Endurance" will most certainly also be taken into consideration.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that we are still within the time limit? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was worried that unless the Government acted within 24 hours we might lose the opportunity of exercising the option to buy the "Polar Circle".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall most certainly not lose the opportunity to purchase "Polar Circle".
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the Government had planned ahead from the beginning and had surveyed the likely date on which the old "Endurance" would become no longer usable, would it not have been possible—I am sure that it would have been possible: this is a rhetorical question—for this ship to have been built in a British yard? Will the noble Earl and the House accept that I ask this question not in the least in a spirit of detraction from the right decision which has been taken and in which we rejoice but simply to make a point about naval planning in general?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we consider that we have done the right thing in the circumstances. I can assure the noble Lord that we have got good value for money.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister able to say anything about the armaments proposed for "Polar Circle"? Is he aware that concern has been expressed that neither the ship nor the Royal Marine detachment on board will be sufficiently armed to carry out many of the tasks which may arise in the course of their operational duties?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that personal weapons only are embarked as part of the ship's self-protection in the normal way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the ship is to be called "Endurance"—I certainly support that —should it not be called "Endurance II", bearing in mind the distinguished record of the first "Endurance"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is another consideration that will be borne in mind.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as this announcement appears to have been welcomed by almost all Members of the House and as it appears to be a reassertion of the fact that we intend to keep the Falkland Islands British, can the Minister give us up-to-date figures for the cost of so doing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means. If he is asking for the cost of the operation of the Falkland Islands, that is something that is held in commercial confidence.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will write to me so that the House can know the full cost of what it wants.
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, and I have already given the reason why not.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I much appreciate the suggestion of the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Democrat Party in your Lordships' House, but "Endurance" is the name that the family prefer. As I think my noble friend explained, it is based on the family motto "Fortitudine Vincimis"—By endurance we conquer. I think "Endurance" is the appropriate name but I fully accept that the Minister is entitled to postpone a decision until further consideration has been given to it. I am grateful to him for undertaking to do so.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the new frigate order.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the European Parliamentary Constituencies (England)
954
(Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991 and the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991 will be taken.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have to apologise to the House and to your Lordships for the fact that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is not at the moment in his place. I should be grateful if your Lordships would give that point a little consideration. We expected the defence Statement to come after the Private Notice Question but I understand from the Chief Whip's announcement that it is to come later. I very much hope that my noble friend will appear immediately.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Different amounts for dwellings in different valuation bands]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 42. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 43.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) The amounts of council tax payable in respect of dwellings situated in the area of any billing authority (or the same part of such an area) shall be in proportion to the rateable value of the property in that area held on the valuation list.").
The noble Lord said: Before I enter into the substance of the amendment I want to register as strong a protest as I can against a statement of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, Mr. Portillo, in the House of Commons yesterday. During oral answers to Questions Mr. Portillo said (at col. 305 of the Official Report)—
Baroness Blatch: I am not certain that the noble Lord is in order. Amendment No. 42 has been called and I do not know whether that opportunity can be taken to talk about a matter that is wholly unrelated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If any Member of the Committee wishes to move that I be no longer heard, that is his privilege. At present, I have something very strong to object to which relates directly to the conduct of this Bill; and I propose to do that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I beg to move that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Lord be no longer heard. —(Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is a debatable Motion. If people want to waste the time of the Committee before listening to what my noble friend has to say, then so be it. As far as I know, the rules of the House do not preclude any Member of the House in moving an amendment saying what he believes is right in accordance with that amendment—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And germane.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: And germane, as my noble friend says, to that amendment. Unless we hear my noble friend we will not know whether what he has to say is germane to the amendment. I therefore hope that if this absurd Motion goes to the vote Members of the Committee on all sides will, in the interests of free speech, vote it down unanimously, or nearly unanimously.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may intervene. My point at the beginning was that I believed that what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was doing was out of order. Amendment No. 42 was called and the Committee would expect Amendment No. 42 to be addressed and not for there to be a continuation of a debate that took place in another place yesterday.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In moving Amendment No. 42, which I have done, I propose to speak to Amendment No. 42, but I propose to do so in my own way.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: With the agreement of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion. I say in parenthesis that I had assumed from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accepted the view of my noble friend Lady Blatch that he was accepting that he could not do so within the terms of the Motion. If he now says that he can, there is no purpose in my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are concerned this afternoon with a number of individual amendments to the Bill and we are concerned with the issue of the progress of the Bill. As has been stated on a number of occasions during the Committee stage of this Bill and during proceedings on many other Bills, it is the responsibility of the Opposition in this Chamber to produce from the consideration of a Bill the best possible result within a reasonable time. In introducing the amendment I should like to seek the confirmation of the Minister that the timetable for the Bill, which has been a matter for discussion in Committee—it can only be a matter for discussion on individual amendments in this Committee—was agreed between the usual channels. The Government asked me whether six days would be adequate for the Bill and I agreed to the six days which were offered. I wonder whether the Minister will be good enough to agree to that statement.
Baroness Blatch: I am not absolutely certain what I am being asked to agree with. I know that there are to be six days for the Committee stage of the Bill. I also
956
know that a number of noble Lords have thought that rather excessive because it is unusual for the process to take six days. However, I am afraid I was not privy to all the negotiations that took place through the usual channels.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the Minister's privilege. However, yesterday in another place Mr. Portillo, speaking as a Minister—and therefore I am able to quote him—said:
"On the question of abolishing the community charge, it is the Labour Party which has done what it can to delay the progress of the Bill through the House and another place". —[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/92; col. 305.]
I take the greatest possible objection to a Minister in another place accusing my party of something which is strictly and factually not true and which in any case is completely outwith the rights of Ministers in another place. I suggest to the Committee that it is totally wrong for the Government to make such statements criticising the conduct of proceedings in this Chamber. I shall gladly give way if the Minister wishes to intervene; if not, I shall continue with the content of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It is not for me to defend, or otherwise, what was said in another place. I still believe that the matter has nothing to do with Amendment No. 42. However, perhaps I may say that I have no doubt that my honourable friend was doing no more than expressing his surprise, as indeed many people have done, that there are to be six days for the Committee stage. But the fact that it was agreed through the usual channels is not in doubt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The fact is that six days were offered and six days were accepted. If that is some form of apology for the behaviour of the Minister's honourable friend, I accept it in the form that it has been offered.
Amendment No. 42 deals with one of the most important aspects of local government finance and with the credibility of the council tax as an alternative to the poll tax. I remind Members of the Committee that it has always been the Government's position that there was nothing wrong with the poll tax in itself: it is simply that it did not achieve the confidence of the people and they failed to be satisfied that it was fair. There are many reasons for that. But the reason I suggest above all is that the poll tax was seen not to be related to ability to pay, which is a condition not only for the fairness of taxes but for their collectability.
In the Bill before the Committee we have a version of a property tax, combined with a poll tax, which is apparently deliberately designed to be as unfair as possible and to be as far as possible from any system of local government finance which would actually reflect ability to pay. The proposed amendment would replace the provision in Clause 5(1) which provides that the charges in the different valuation bands—and we shall deal with those bands in a further amendment to subsection (2)—shall be assessed according to the proportions set out in the list which, in summary, vary from six to 18; in other words, a proportion of three

957
at the highest to one at the lowest. It will be obvious to the Committee that that in no way reflects the distribution of income in the country.
Even if one were to ignore the extremes of income on the grounds—with which I do not necessarily agree—that there is a limit to which you can tax millionaires or multi-millionaires and those with the lowest incomes are protected from taxation, including taxation by the rebate system, nevertheless the distribution of income in the country bears no relationship to the relatively flat distribution which is proposed in the legislation.
We have before us a proposal that gives very crude bands which do not reflect the differences in income. Indeed, they do not just fail to reflect the differences in income in total; they fail to reflect them in terms of the valuation of property. For example, because we have such crude bands, the situation could arise where two houses with a difference in valuation of only £2,000 could be taxed differently by as much as 20 per cent. or even more, whereas two other houses with a difference in valuation of £20,000 could be taxed exactly the same.
There may be no absolute measure of fairness, but I suggest to the Committee that such a situation will be seen to be unfair and not to reflect ability to pay. Therefore, the system will bring upon itself the same level of incomprehension and reluctance to pay which has been so evident with the poll tax. Mr. Major may say, as he said in the Daily Mail article of October 1990 which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Stallard earlier this week, that the Government have one more opportunity to get it right and if they do not do so this time they will never be forgiven. But I suggest that the opportunity to get it right has not been taken by this legislation and that we are about to embark upon the introduction of a new tax which will arouse the same sort of antagonism, although perhaps not to the same degree, as the unlamented legislation which it replaces. The bands proposed for the council tax do not adequately reflect the differences in property values, let alone in ability to pay.
There are other problems about the proposed bands—and they will be a matter for future amendments—which centre on the fact that in most parts of the country there will not be an even distribution of properties within the bands or an even distribution of households paying different amounts reflecting their ability to pay. What will happen very largely in the North of England is that there will be a concentration of properties in the lowest bands of the eight proposed and in other areas, especially in London, without very great differences as between poverty and riches, there will be a concentration of properties in the highest band. The effect of that, whether it is in Bury, Hackney or somewhere like Chelmsford or Barking and Dagenham, where there is a concentration in the middle band, will be that most people will pay the same. They will perceive that as being unfair and as being closer to the poll tax than any rational system of financing local government.
In turn, that means that people will not believe in the valuation system. Ministers appear to think—or at
958
any rate they claim to whether they do or not—that the fact that there are crude and wide bands means that there will be fewer appeals. They seek to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy by not telling people what their actual valuations will be and where their properties stand within the bands. I suggest to the Committee that the contrary is the case. If there are wide bands, by definition, the difference between one band and another will be worth fighting for. If someone can get 20 per cent. off his council tax by winning an appeal and moving into a lower band, there is much more chance of him wishing to do so rather than appealing against his assessment—as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, charmingly confessed she did—for the sake of an extra £5 or £10 off the rates as was the case in the old days. I suggest to the Committee that the Government will end up with a system that will be much more litigious than the rating system, although perhaps not quite so litigious as the poll tax.
Another reason why the banding system will not work effectively is that it is based—as became clear at Question Time this afternoon—on a series of valuation figures, and the relationship between individual figures, produced in 1991 which is supposed to be valid for all time. We all know that that is not the case. What is proposed is fundamentally regressive.
It is worth spelling out again what is meant by regressive and progressive, because some people do not seem to realise what is meant. I shall spell it out by example. A flat rate poll tax is regressive. A property tax like the rates is mildly progressive. A property tax like the council tax is mildly regressive, and income tax, whether a local or a national income tax, is progressive. It is especially progressive if there is a higher rate of taxation at higher rates of income. What is proposed is the nearest in the scale to the completely regressive taxation of the poll tax which could possibly be imagined. It is not fair. It will not be seen to be fair. For that reason it will fall, subject to the Government's own strictures. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is extraordinary that the noble Lord should be so critical of the system proposed in the Bill when he knows that his party, when in office, never faced the pain of a revaluation. That was pointed out by either my noble friend Lord Renfrew or my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. What is even worse, he advocates returning to a system that is already 19 years out of date.
I am sure that this will not be the last attempt by Members opposite to return to the Labour Party's proposal for rates. Amendment No. 42 deals with what I can only presume to be an integral part of the Labour Party's rates proposals. I say "presume" because Members opposite have not been very explicit about the detail. I had hoped today that this Committee might learn what the term "fair rates" actually stands for. Alas, having studied the amendment and listened to the arguments put forward in support, I am afraid I have gleaned almost nothing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is paying attention.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am paying very great attention.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is talking about fair rates. Where in the amendment does she find the words "fair rates"?
Baroness Blatch: I am dealing with the amendment. The noble Lord has been saying that his party has a better system. He used a good deal of his time to criticise the proposed system. The amendment proposes to return us much closer to the Labour Party's fair rates proposals where each house is uniquely valued according to its rateable value. That is to be coupled with some form of income-related system which will require that the details of occupants' incomes be known so as to make individual adjustments to the rates payable.
We have already debated a number of amendments proposed by Members opposite seeking to abandon valuation bands in favour of precise capital valuations. The Committee rejected those amendments as impracticable and unnecessary. The amendment would take us a step towards the Labour Party's proposal of convoluted assessments of valuation based on capital and rental values, repairs and rebuilding costs. All that on an annual basis.
I would remind the Committee however that under the old rating system high value properties faced disproportionately large local tax bills. That is an arrangement which the Labour Party proposes going back to and which is implicit in the amendment. All those people whose income is above the level for reduction or rebate under Labour's proposals will suffer greatly if we are to believe what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has told us about proposals to introduce a form of income tax with the property tax. An interesting question for the noble Lord is: in each household whose income will be taken into account —the liable person and/or everybody who lives in the house? How will that information be collected? Will it be via the Inland Revenue or will local authorities use their assessment of income? Could this be the beginning of a Lib/Lab pact on the issue? Couple all of that with the 50 pence in the pound top rate tax increase and no limit on national insurance contributions, and hundreds of thousands of people on middle incomes will indeed suffer greatly. All that is reminiscent of squeezing the people until the pips squeak.
The amendment poses a threat to those people who are, as I said, just above the level for rebate and those on middle incomes. A banded system of local taxation ensures that everyone is asked to make no more than a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing local services. Those with high value properties will pay more, but not too much more. We believe that the range of bills we have proposed, where the highest can be no more than three times the lowest, is fair and sustainable. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the flaw in his argument is that the proposed council tax, just like the poll tax and the rates before it, is partly a genuine tax in so far as it covers services from which not every resident benefits, such as education, libraries, swimming pools, sports facilities and so on, and partly a charge from which every resident does benefit, for services such as street lighting, refuse collection, road and street repairs and so forth.
To the extent that it is a tax the noble Lord is right that it should be progressive; but to the extent that it is a charge I cannot see any argument for it being progressive any more than people pay different prices for food and clothing according to their income. By recognising that the council tax is partly a tax and partly a charge, and making it mildly progressive in that respect, the Government have it more or less right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, drew attention to the fact that I had always argued about my rates, I should say that I have always sought a revaluation. I have never obtained as little as £5. I should have been very disappointed if that were all. I did the whole street at one stage. The minimum reduction was £150 and the highest was about £700. They were large savings. The whole point about the banding system—this is the point that the noble Lord is missing—is that people who are irritant types like myself and who argue over small amounts will have nothing to gain, because unless one falls close to the boundary one will not be moving into the next band. The bands are so wide that for most people it will not be worth arguing.
I also take issue with the noble Lord's comment that the tax will not be related to people's ability to pay. I understood that that is what the rebates were for. I believe it to be right that a value should be attached to each property. The point has been made that if all the occupants were students they would all be exempt. I do not know that I go along with that, but perhaps I have misunderstood. There should be a charge related to each property which should then be fully rebated, according to the incomes or circumstances of the occupants, up to a possible full rebate. I believe that the banding system is good. Built into the proposal is the ability of people to pay.
Baroness Hamwee: Has not the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made the point by telling us that her being an irritant achieved savings of as much as £700? I thought that we were going to have another argument today about the balance between administrative convenience and fairness but I believe that we are talking about fairness only. The Minister did not mention administrative convenience.
I was interested to hear the Minister lay the blame for the failure to face up to revaluation entirely on the Labour Party. That may give rise to some further private amusement at some point. The point again is whether the proposed system is fair. We on these Benches do not believe that it is. I support the

961
amendment. The amendment would provide a mechanism for making the tax rather fairer than it otherwise would be.
We keep hearing about the penalty that will be paid by those who live in high value properties. I am much more concerned that we should be fair to those on middle and lower middle incomes who find themselves in property of a high value. We have talked about this a great deal and we know that they will find themselves badly off as a result of the tax. The banding system will cause immense resentment, and although we do not support the rates as a system, as we have made perfectly clear, in supporting this amendment all we would be trying to do is to make the system fairer.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Baroness allow me to come back on two points that she made? First, she made a comparison about how fairly middle income people would be dealt with. Under the proposals before the House, middle income people are protected because of the dampening effect of the banding system proposed under the Bill. Middle income people under a local income tax, and middle income people under the system proposed by Members of the Committee opposite (which has no limit whatever) would, I am afraid, be substantially worse off.
Secondly, on revaluation, I should make the point that it was this Government who faced the pain of revaluation. It was also this Government who determined that that factor was decidedly unpopular with the electorate. I made the point that we shall not go back to a system that requires frequent revaluations, but Members of the Committee opposite advocate not only going back to a system that is 19 years out of date but they also plan annual revaluations. That is the point I was making.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may respond to that. There is nothing in the amendment about annual or rolling revaluations. The point has been made before and will be made again, particularly in debates later today about banding, that house prices and values do not necessarily reflect people's incomes or ability to pay. In many cases people are forced to pay for houses of a high value because of the area in which they live. They pay far more than they comfortably can. That is the short point to which we shall return.
Baroness Elles: I wish to support my noble friend Lady Blatch. If I understand the banding system properly, surely the one strength of it is that people who own properties can spend money on them and improve them rather than letting them deteriorate. One of the housing problems in the country is the number of houses in a bad state of repair. The landlord resents spending money when it will increase the rateable value of the property. Surely banding is the one system that gets rid of the problem. It should therefore improve the number of houses for rent and for suitable accommodation rather than having them deteriorate under the old system which, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, supports.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: There is just one point that I wish to make. The noble Baroness criticised the amendment on the grounds that it goes back to the rates. It does not. It merely tries to find a system of valuation which is related to something which people understand and of which they have experience.
We find that under band D the scale is from £68,000 to £88,000, so the difference is £20,000 between the lower and the upper range. When people consider the cost and value of their houses, £20,000 represents about 30 per cent. of the value and it is a lot of money. In valuation band F, we find that the difference between the lower and the upper figure is £40,000. Again people will simply not understand the enormous difference in value between one house and another, although the difference in the houses themselves may not be all that great.
In band G we find that the difference is no less than £160,000. How on earth will people relate to such bands? The contention that my noble friend makes is that we shall reach a position where people do not understand the system and are unable to relate it to their own circumstances. That is precisely what has happened with the poll tax. Thus, the Government are making the same mistake again. All the Opposition is trying to do is to help them not to make that mistake because we think more about local government and its future than about party politics.
Lord Stallard: I wish briefly to intervene on the point my noble friend raised about the differences and the disadvantages of living in London. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness and did not hear her comment on that point. She spoke about a hypothetical Bill that is not yet before the House that concerns the Labour Party's electioneering. At this point I am not interested in that Bill although I shall be when it comes before us. For the time being I am interested in this Bill, and I had hoped that the noble Baroness would address her remarks to it rather than to something that may come up in the future. She did not satisfy me, nor will she satisfy the people in Hackney, which my noble friend mentioned. I could use the example of Camden or any other place, but she did not mention them.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that the amendment before the Committee takes us back to a unique revaluation of each property based on rateable values? That takes us away from what is in the Bill and back to what Members of the Committee opposite advocate.
Lord Stallard: That was adequately explained by my noble friend; it takes us back to a basis for valuation. At the moment it has nothing to do with the issues that might arise next April, May, June or whenever. We are dealing with this Bill now and it was perfectly reasonable to put forward this amendment. The point raised by my noble friend was that the average household in Hackney will, on the Government's figures, pay £520 council tax compared with, for example, £346 in Scarborough for the same size dwelling. How would the noble Baroness explain that? She has not mentioned it.

963
I am also concerned about the widow whose plight comes up under every Bill which concerns privatisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, mentioned the difficulty of maintaining older properties which is one problem on which we have always campaigned. Elderly people who are capital rich but income poor bought their houses when they were cheaper. The houses have increased in value and as a result they will be put in a higher band. Those people are only living on their pensions plus a few shillings and they may have some money in the bank to pay for their funerals. They will now be taxed at a far higher level than anywhere else in the country.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord makes my point for me. First, there would be a reduction for a widow for the lost partner. That is not so under the scheme advocated by Members opposite. Under the system advocated by the Bill, the house would be in no higher band than H; but there would be no limit whatever for that same widow under the scheme advocated by Members of the Committee opposite. Nothing would be done for the widow who previously paid rates. Under the scheme advocated by Members opposite, there is to be no ceiling on the value of the property.
Lord Stallard: I do not wish to go into what the Labour Party would do but I can say what they did before. Many Labour local authorities had a special hardship scheme on rates which took care of most of the widows. They simply applied on a hardship basis and said that they could not afford the higher rates because of their circumstances. A rebate was granted by most Labour local authorities, certainly in London. No doubt that would be one of the principles that would still obtain.
I see nothing in the Bill to justify what the noble Baroness suggested about the rebates to widows in the circumstances I describe. Those who have money in the bank and are therefore outside the benefits are a subject to which we shall come later when we deal with benefits. That is our consideration. The noble Baroness did not refer to it, nor to the massive difference in the average council tax proposals for London compared with exactly the same circumstances for the same properties in other parts of the country.
Lord Monkswell: I hope I may suggest another way of looking at the clause we are discussing. I believe we would all accept that one of the big problems over public acceptability of the poll tax was that it was seen to be unfair. I have heard a number of people say on their doorsteps, "Yes, my local tax has gone down with the introduction of the poll tax, but I am fairly well off. I know that the local authority expenditure has not decreased, therefore if my tax rate has gone down, other people must be paying more tax".
What happened, effectively, was that fairly well off people paid less and poorer people paid more. One of the difficulties with the valuation of the bands is that well off people will pay less compared with people who are not so well off. I hope I may remind the Committee of the words of my noble friend Lord Desai on Second
964
Reading, when he explained the theory and practice of rates. Effectively this council tax is a form of rates in the sense that it is a tax on property.
Tax on property, whether it is rates or the council tax, is effectively a tax on the notional income stream from that capital. The way the Government seek to implement the council tax and the banding system means that the tax on the income stream of well off people whose property has a high value will be less than the tax on the income stream of people with low capital assets. That will be seen to be unfair. That is why this council tax will not succeed. British people will not put up with unfairness. I make a plea to the Committee to accept this amendment because it seeks to tackle the basic unfairness of this Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The previous speaker appears to be rather confused on this matter. He has overlooked several points. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in going over those points. However, I should say that central Government have taken on a much greater burden of expenditure—85 per cent. That accounts for one part of the difference we have been discussing. Further, the Bill proposes a 100 per cent. rebate for those who cannot afford the new tax. That point is extremely significant.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was right to refer to the position in London. I understand that in another place the Minister has talked about some help being given to London although I do not know what has come out of that. At one time great pressure was exerted to establish a different banding system for London, or some special concession for London. However, if one lives in a place that incurs higher expenditure, it seems fair that properties in that place should be valued more highly in terms of banding. However, I appreciate that London might lose a sum of £300 million. I believe that was the figure mentioned. Therefore there is something to be said for giving special consideration to the position in London.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have tabled amendments which address that matter. I hope that when we reach those amendments, we shall gain the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who, unlike the Minister, have spoken to this amendment. The Minister completely ignored the amendment and gave an election speech of her own. However, that is an election speech we have heard before and no doubt we shall hear it again.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made an interesting point about the distinction between a tax and a charge. He will recall as well as I that during discussion on the Local Government Finance Bill in 1988 the pretence was maintained that the poll tax was a charge for services rather than a tax. It is obvious that that pretence has not been sustained. The Government have, in effect, abandoned it by calling the new provision a council tax. I suggest to the noble Lord there is no significant element of charge as opposed to tax in the council tax as now proposed. What there is, however, is something which is quite

965
different; that is, a system of discounts, which is a clumsy and inadequate way of providing for rebates. When we debate the difference between discounts and rebates, no doubt we will pursue this matter further. Charges, other than individual charges for using a swimming pool, tennis court or any particular minority service of a council, are no part of the council tax. They could not effectively be part of any system of local government finance other than the charges made directly by a local authority for specific purposes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, puts herself out on a limb in the nicest possible way by saying she is an awkward person who would appeal over relatively small amounts. I congratulate her for obtaining rather larger amounts for people living in her street. I hope when the noble Baroness thinks about this matter she will realise that the very fact that there are significant differences between the bands, combined with the fact that no individual knows where he stands in a band, make it an attractive temptation to appeal on the off chance that one might be towards the bottom of a band and therefore might save as much as 20 per cent. or even 22 per cent, on one's tax.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe the point the noble Lord has overlooked is that the amounts that will be demanded from people under the council tax will be nothing like the amounts that were demanded under the rates through a poundage system. One could devote much effort to moving to another band, but that would not make a huge amount of difference. One would benefit more if one's income was low enough to merit paying less.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the noble Baroness should seek to defend a system which allows 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure to be controlled by central Government. That is not our policy and has never been our policy. It is not a policy that anyone who is concerned with the true independence and integrity of local government ought to support.
I now wish to discuss the later intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. If she thinks that the fact that the expenditure of this central Government is being raised in a different way justifies the regressive nature of the council tax, I am afraid she is not taking account of the changes in central Government taxation which have taken place under this Government. While there has been an overall increase over the past 13 years in the proportion of people's income which has been taken up in central Government taxation—there has not been a decrease as Conservatives so often claim—the way in which that taxation has been levied is substantially less progressive than it was in 1979. That is the case for two reasons. The first is because a much higher proportion of taxation is levied in indirect taxation with valued added tax at 17.5 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. Secondly, income tax has been made more pleasant for the rich and therefore, by definition, more unpleasant for the poor.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the effect of it. The effect of the whole taxation system of central Government has been that the rich are relatively better off and the poor are relatively worse off.
Baroness Blatch: If there are to be no limits on what local authorities spend, will that burden fall on local people or will government raise to some unlimited level their grant to local authorities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has asked a question to which she knows the answer very well. She knows perfectly well that it has been the practice in the past both of Labour and Conservative governments to tailor the grant they make to local authorities according, fundamentally, to the needs of the latter. They are perfectly at liberty to penalise local authorities—Labour governments have done this in the past —by reducing grant on occasions when they think local authorities are charging excessively. That is not the same as capping. However, I do not think we should anticipate debates which will take place next week. I shall not be tempted into defending capping either in individual cases or in the wholesale form proposed by the Government in this legislation.
My noble friends Lord Stallard, Lord Stoddart and Lord Monkswell made it very clear that this is not merely a matter of what the taxation does but of what the taxation is seen to do. I must point out that the Government's own chosen battlefield is the perceived unfairness of the taxation system, not that it is genuinely unfair. They still think that the poll tax is right but they moved away from the poll tax because they recognised that the public perceive it as unfair. I suggest to the Government that this tax will be perceived to be unfair in very much the same way as the poll tax and for very much the same reasons. I suggest that it would be in their interest to accept the amendment and recognise the reality of the situation. I wish to take the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents,136.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Donoughue, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ennals, L.

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

[Teller.]

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grimond, L.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hooson, L.

Desai, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

967

Hughes, L.

Rea, L.

Hunt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Richard, L.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Judd, L.

Serota, B.

Kagan, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kennet, L.

Stallard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mayhew, L.

Warnock, B.

Monkswell, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Phillips, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gridley, L.

Acton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Alexander of Tunis, E.

L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Halsbury, E.

Alport, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hayter, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Astor, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Holderness, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Holmpatrick, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Ironside, L.

Blyth, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Boardman, L.

Joseph, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Knollys, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Byron, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Manchester, D.

Carnock, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carrington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Monson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Morris, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Downshire, M.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Newall, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

Northbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pender, L.

Faithfull, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rippon of Haxham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

968

Sandford, L.

Terrington, L.

Savile, L.

Teviot, L.

Selsdon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shannon, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Slim, V.

Trumpington, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Westbury, L.

[Teller.]

Wharton, B.

Swinfen, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

New Frigate Order
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on a further order for type 23 frigates.
"The type 23 frigate will form the backbone of the Royal Navy anti-submarine surface force in the future and is in addition a highly capable all-round warship. Four are already in service and six more are under construction. In June we invited tenders for up to three more frigates. The benefit of our competitive tendering policy was clearly shown in the extremely keen prices offered, which are significantly lower in real terms than previous ships. The benefits of privatisation of the yards, and the greatly improved productivity now, ensure better value for money for our own defence expenditure and help the yards themselves to compete once again overseas as the opportunities with Malaysia and Oman have shown.
"Before I turn to the outcome of the competition, I remind the House that the contract with the shipbuilder is for less than half the total estimated cost of the frigates. The larger part is made up by the host of specialised equipments that such a frigate contains. For some of these, contracts have yet to be awarded. But some are already known; for instance, the ships' 4.5 inch gun will be ordered from VSEL in Barrow, the machinery control equipment from Vosper Thornycroft in Porchester, the Vertical Launch Sea Wolf missiles from British Aerospace in Bristol. The four Spey gas turbine engines for each ship will be ordered from Rolls-Royce at Coventry, main gearing from GEC Rugby and diesel generators from Paxman Diesels at Colchester. The shipbuilder will itself also have many sub-contractors. Hundreds of firms across the United Kingdom, large and small, will benefit from this order over the next few years.

969
"Turning now to the results of the competition, I can tell the House that the tenders produced a winner by a very clear margin. We have accordingly decided to place a fixed-price contract for three type 23 frigates with Yarrow Shipbuilders on the Clyde. The construction of the first ship will start in the second half of this year. These ships will join the Duke class and will be named HMS "Somerset", HMS "Grafton" and HMS "Sutherland".
"This is very good news for Glasgow, and for Scotland as a whole. I recognise that it is, equally, a disappointment for the other yards that had tendered for the work, and for people in those areas. However, this type 23 order is but one part of a substantial on-going programme of vessels for the Royal Navy. This will include a new anti-air warfare frigate, a second batch of Trafalgar class submarines and other significant vessels to ensure that we maintain a modern and effective Navy in the future.
"This order brings to 13 the number of type 23 frigates ordered since 1984 and the number of vessels ordered for the Royal Navy since 1979 to seventy-one. It is yet more evidence that this Government are committed to ensuring the capability of the Royal Navy's surface fleet and to the wider aim of ensuring our forces of the future have the modern equipment that they need."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We welcome the announcement that has been made. We are glad that the Government have decided to purchase three type 23s rather than possibly leave one on option, as it were. We also wish to congratulate Yarrow, the successful yard. As the noble Earl said, it is very good news for Glasgow and for Scotland.
In congratulating the successful yard, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that we must sympathise with the loser yards. There is an unanswered question about the know-how charge imposed on the loser yards in the tendering process, which we discussed at Question Time yesterday. I should like to ask him when the tendering process for the next batch of type 23 frigates will begin. What are the Government's long-term plans for that project? Will they discuss with our NATO allies the naval requirements and indeed naval strategy in the light of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its consequences?
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether the Defence White Paper which ensures, in its own words:
"sufficient warship building capacity to meet likely future defence requirements",
was borne in mind when the contract was placed. If that commitment stands, can he explain what will happen to the loser yards and what plans the Government have to ensure that those yards will be able to remain in business as warship building yards in the future? Perhaps the noble Earl will confirm that, apart from what has been announced, the only
970
significant naval orders available until 1995 are the three type 23 frigates which are currently under order and that the tenders for the minehunter Sandown class have been shelved. Is that the case? Proposals to replace two rather old amphibious support craft and to construct an aviation support ship have been deferred, as have proposals for a further auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel.
In the light of that programme, is it the case, as some people in the industry feel, that there will not be room for more than two or at best three warship building yards by 1995–96? Is that the Government's impression and view? If so, what do the Government intend to do to ensure that those yards, which in their own right are extremely efficient, are helped to diversify out of warship building into civil and commercial ship building, and possibly other activities?
Having asked those questions, of which I gave the noble Earl prior notice, I again wish to emphasise that from these Benches we congratulate Yarrow and we are pleased for Scotland. We believe that this is a good decision, but we recognise that there are obligations on the Government to make sure that Tyneside, Merseyside and indeed Southampton are carefully looked after as a result of that decision.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl, was the decision by the Government cleared in advance with our NATO allies? Does it link in with the United States' decision to reduce its naval strength by 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. a year over a great number of years? I hope that he knows the answer to that question already.
Does he recall that nearly three years ago the Government decided on a destroyer-frigate fleet of 40 ships? Is that still the target for the Government? Are the wartime tasks given to the fleet the same as they were three years ago? Has no adjustment at all been made for the break-up of the Soviet Union? Do not we now need a coherent long-term plan for the navy in the new circumstances?
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for welcoming the final confirmation that three type 23s are to be ordered. I welcome his remarks about Yarrow and accept that at the same time other shipbuilding yards inevitably have to be disappointed.
With regard to future numbers of the type 23, certainly more type 23 frigates are planned after this order. We cannot comment on size or timing at this particular stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, moved on to speak of our NATO requirement. In reply to him and also to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as has been said many times in this House, the Government remain committed to a force level of about 40 destroyers and frigates.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked, for instance, about single role minehunters. Certainly

971
further single role minehunters will be ordered but the size and timing of the order yet remain to be determined.
He then asked about auxiliary oilers replenishment. Again the size and timing of orders for further auxiliary oiler replenishment ships remain yet to be determined. The noble Lord then asked about the future of shipyards. He asked me really to speculate too much about that. However, yes, I can say that there is over-capacity in the warship building industry. The Ministry of Defence orders alone will not generate sufficient work to alter that position. Ship-builders really must seek other markets in addition to the Ministry of Defence work. As the warship programme is slimmed, and with completion of the main Trident submarine build, some contraction of the industry seems likely.
As regards the workforce, it has always been the Government's view that it is the decision of the defence industries, the shipbuilding yards themselves, to make their own way forward, to make their own decisions in line with their directors and their shareholders. We do not regard it as the Government's job to interfere with that.
As regards the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, yes, the situation has been notified to our NATO allies. Of course the final commitment, as I have already said, of about 40 destroyers and frigates is well known by our NATO allies. All that is taken into consideration as regards the future planning of the Royal Navy and its capability.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people believe it extremely sensible to award all three contracts for those frigates to the same builders inasmuch as it must be economical and efficient whatever disappointment the decision causes to other yards? However, will my noble friend state the Government policy on maintaining in potential operation other shipyards which can construct warships? It would obviously be dangerous to allow the number of suitable shipyards to be reduced too far. Have the Government a policy on a minimum provision of that kind?
The noble Earl referred to 40 frigates and destroyers, and certain other craft. Have the Government in mind in due course to replace one or more of the three by now ageing aircraft carriers now serving in the Royal Navy? I believe that they have some years of operational life ahead but they are a type of ship which does not necessarily age well. I shall be interested to know whether the Government have in mind the idea of replacing aircraft carriers too.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first I understand and indeed appreciate the remarks of my noble friend concerning the economical efficiency of placing all the orders in the same shipyard. Of course that is very evident; that is why we have done it.
As regards the number of shipbuilding yards in the future, we talk at all times to defence industries on the procurement side and give them as far ahead as possible as much notification as we can of our future
972
requirements. Therefore as regards the number of shipyards in the future, it is a hypothetical question to ask, but we are aware of it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, after we have informed the shipbuilding industry as much as possible it is up to the companies themselves to determine their own future.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked about aircraft carriers. I cannot answer that point at this time. However, I understand it well. I shall write to the noble Lord to see whether I can be more enlightening.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister has very properly expressed sympathy with those yards which have not on this occasion obtained an order. However, I am sure that he will bear in mind the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams that the need in all such yards is as great as ever. He will not be surprised to hear me mention Tyneside which has an absolutely first class record of shipbuilding of all kinds. It is an area where unemployment remains the highest in the United Kingdom outside northern Ireland. While stressing the unemployment aspect, on this occasion one has to stress the sheer expertise and dedication in that area when considering such projects. At this stage will the noble Earl go a little further? Is anything being considered for other yards without a decision having been taken?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot say at this moment whether there is anything in the pipeline or whether decisions are about to be taken on other yards. The noble Lord is quite right to say that in this field in this decision there are bound to be winners and losers. The losers will be very disappointed. Of course they have one of the finest reputations in the country as a shipbuilding yard. As regards the future, I have to say again because of that we are very aware of the difficulties of some of the yards. We talk regularly to those yards about the future.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the announcement following so hard on the heels of my Question on the same subject yesterday, will my noble friend accept from me that it is extremely good news for Yarrow, for the subcontractors to which he has referred, for Clydeside and indeed for Scotland, coming as close as it does to the recent announcement about Ravenscraig? I do not in any sense gloat over yards such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, referred which have not been so fortunate with this order. They all tried extremely hard. I am sure my noble friend will recognise that this order will preserve jobs, create others and possibly enhance the prospects for further jobs if orders from abroad come to fruition.
Having given the dates for the start of the construction programme, will my noble friend give an indication when the three frigates are likely to be completed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the intention is that the three frigates will come into service in the second half of this decade. I take the point of my noble friend with reference to Ravenscraig. Of course there is

973
absolutely no connection with the Ravenscraig announcement. Clearly what I have announced is welcome news for Scotland.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question on the armaments of the destroyers. Will they be fitted with some effective answer to the Exocet missile? It became perfectly clear in the Falklands War and the Gulf War that ships were being sent to sea without an appropriate answer to that missile. The noble Earl has spoken about the navy having the most efficient and up-to-date armaments. I ask the question as one who was sunk in 1941 in the most modern destroyer then built, when the ship had no answer whatever to the Stuka bomber which was effective at that time. Ships were then sent to sea without the answer to hostile attack armament. Will provision be made for those destroyers to be sent to sea with an effective answer to the Exocet type missile?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am almost certain that I am right in saying that the type 23 frigate will have a very clearly defined Exocet defensive system. It will be fitted with the harpoon anti-surface ship missile and will provide an all round surface warfare and naval gunfire support capability. Certainly air defence will be provided by the vertical launch Sea Wolf system.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I share the welcome from all sides of the House on the placing of the order. However, there is concern from all sides of the House about the capacity of the shipbuilding industry to build warships in the future. We must also be cognisant of the ability of our shipyards to build merchant vessels.
I wish to ask two specific questions. First, did the Government ask the firms involved what effect placing the orders would have on employment or unemployment in their localities? Secondly, will the three frigates that have been ordered be built in parallel or in sequence? Will they be built at the same time or one after the other? We are in the midst of one of the longest running recessions to which this country has been subjected since the war. The building of the frigates presents an opportunity to provide employment and to inject economic activity into the country at this time of recession. If the warships were built in parallel—that is, all at the same time in different yards —rather than as I suspect in series, one after the other in one yard, we should have the opportunity of preventing the continued rise in unemployment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am almost certain that they will be built in series, one after the other. If I happen to be wrong or incorrect on that point I shall certainly advise the noble Lord. When he stresses again the importance of the future of the shipyards, yes, he is right. I have already said several times that it is up to the shipyards themselves to decide their future. Every consideration was taken into account before placing the order with Yarrow but its price was
974
significantly less than other shipbuilders. At the end of the day it all comes down to a question of value for money, and that is what the taxpayer has to pay for.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many of us on these Benches were delighted to hear the news that he has announced? I am sure that the Royal Navy will also be delighted with the quality of the ships that were previously built at Yarrow. No doubt that quality will continue with the present order. Three vital words appeared in my noble friend's Statement. He said that it was by a "very clear margin" that Yarrow won the contract. Will he confirm, perhaps not today but in writing, that the rules referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the know-how payments are part of the tendering process for such contracts? Is it right that before any of the yards competing for the orders took part in the process they were informed of the rules? Will my noble friend also confirm that, in spite of all the rules, Yarrow won the contract on quality, delivery and value for money by a very clear margin?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that I have already indicated that that is indeed the case. I have said that several times. As regards the actual terms of the contract—we do not normally publish what exactly are the terms of a contract other than to those who are competing—certain specifications were made very clear to the builders.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, on behalf of Members on these Benches, I too welcome the announcement of the new orders being placed. It will be a tremendous boost to Yarrow. Will the Minister kindly confirm that the earlier ships in the line will be updated to the same specification as the new ships? The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to LPDs; that is HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid". I did not hear an answer from the Minister. I know that the matter has been put on hold, but I must point out that those ships have been in service for more than 25 years and are a considerable worry to the Royal Navy. Will the Minister now or in the future indicate when a decision is likely on that type of ship?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, certainly as regards the LPDs a project definition phase for the replacement of HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid" is under way, with some study contracts let and more to follow. Indeed, the decision on the ship orders will follow the assessment of the outcome of the project definition phase.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I warmly endorse the tributes paid to Yarrow. Does the Minister not find it strange that during the past three years the Government have not reassessed in any way the role or size of the frigate fleet? Does that mean that there will never be such a reassessment, or are they waiting for something more important and relevant to happen than the break-up of the Soviet Union?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I find that a somewhat strange question. We have made continually clear time after time that we have taken a long, hard and strategic look across the whole of the world.

975
In view of that we have said that we are committed to a force level of about 40 destroyers and frigates. Prior to our paper entitled Options for Change it was about 50.

Local Government Finance Bill
4.55 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, leave out line 20 and insert ("6: 7: 9: 11: 15: 18: 24: 30: 36: 42: 48: 54").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. We are still dealing with the question of whether the range of banding proposed in the Bill is appropriate. We have debated the question of whether there should be any banding at all. In tabling this amendment I suggest to the Committee that if we are to have banding there should be a broader spread which would allow a fairer solution.
We know that the proposed banding is designed to protect the better off in largish houses who were hit by the rates. I do not use that term as pejoratively as it may sound but a statement has been made more or less in those terms. In fixing the proportion that people in each band will pay, one aim is to avoid Left-wing councils charging a high rate for top value properties. I believe that the Government have gone too far to protect those at the top of the range and that there are not enough bands. The fixed proportion, the increase of three between the lowest and the highest, is too small.
Amendment No. 43 would increase the number of bands from nine to 12. It would do so by adding a greater number of top value bands. As the Bill is written, the burden of the tax falls too heavily on those in average-priced properties. In expensive property areas the highest band, as currently proposed, will trap too many people. Increasing the number of bands would ensure that millionaires in mansions paid a fairer contribution. In the context of this Bill we talk about millionaires almost as often as we talk about widows. I do not believe that there can be many people living in a property valued in excess of £500,000 who cannot afford to pay a significantly higher proportion of the tax than most others.
If we are to have a property tax, the logic should be to look at the effect on the people who live in high value properties as against those who live in low value properties. I feel even more strongly that we should be looking at those in the lower middle bands paying less than those in the high bands rather than penalising those in high value properties.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are to complement the increase in the number of bands and increase the proportion between the bands. At the moment the proportion is three times. Our amendments would increase the proportion to nine times across the 12 bands. That is to protect those on lower and average incomes and to ensure that those who can afford very expensive properties make a fair contribution to local taxes.
976
We are conscious of the effect of the property boom in the 1980s and that many people in different parts of the country are living in property that they bought or acquired many years ago, and that they occupy property that they could not afford to buy now on the open market. Under the current proposals in many cases those people would have to pay the same as millionaires, or at least the very wealthy, living in homes that cost very large sums of money. Those in starter homes, the first time properties, where prices have gone rocketing up over the past few years, will be paying one-third. Our amendments are to attempt to ensure that the burden of local taxation will fall more fairly than it does as currently proposed. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on this side support the amendment. Obviously we would prefer individual valuations, but if we are not going to get that then anything that either stretches the range of bands or alters the relativities between bands, or alternatively goes for regional banding, would have our support. To that extent the amendment moved by the noble Baroness makes the unfair and overcompressed banding system somewhat fairer, and to that extent we should like to be associated with it.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel on this occasion that if this amendment were to be accepted the banding stretches far too wide. To jump from a range of three all the way up to a range of nine is not on. Even in my own part of the world I was sad to learn that three of my friends, because they lost their jobs, had also lost their homes. Many people have taken on mortgages and are really struggling. Although there is a lot of talk about millionaires, they can usually leave the country if they want to.
I feel that in limiting the range we are being much fairer to the cross section of the community. Those on the lowest incomes can have support through social security legislation, but there are those in the middle band who have to buy their houses and I feel that a person purchasing a house, with or without a mortgage, is probably buying the most expensive thing ever in his life. There are few other occasions in one's private life where one would ever write out a cheque for five or more figures. The next most expensive purchase in the ordinary course of a person's life is buying a car from time to time, which we all have to do.
These people have all their capital tied up in a house. It does not earn them s single penny. Usually the larger the house the greater the upkeep, the greater the responsibility, and the greater the expenditure involved. That has been my practical experience. Equally, it is sometimes wrong, as has happened in the past, where rents are kept so low that the landlord, be he a private person or a local authority, is in the position where he simply cannot find the money to repair his properties. I support the present range proposed by the Government within this legislation. They have got it about right.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments deal with the council tax valuation bands and with the relationship between bills for dwellings of different values. They are, therefore, about the balance of the proposals for the council tax. I must tell the noble Baroness and the Committee that they have this wrong.
Let me deal first with the principle of adding additional bands to the council tax. I have explained to this Committee the advantages of a banded system of property valuation. One of these advantages is that it solves at a stroke the problems involved in undertaking a detailed valuation of each and every dwelling. If banding is to be truly effective, however, it is imperative to avoid the detailed valuation issues, which were the bane of the rating system.
The eight broad bands we have chosen will minimise administration and keep the number of appeals to a minimum, while ensuring that the council tax is related to the value of the property. We believe that the eight broad bands we have chosen for the council tax in England, Wales and Scotland fairly reflect the range of property values across Great Britain.
Amendment No. 43 reveals the real reason why the noble Baroness is so anxious to introduce additional council tax bands. A family in a property in the noble Baroness's proposed top council tax band would pay almost five times as much as they would if their home was in band D, and nine times as much as in a band A property. The amendments therefore do no more than widen the difference between the highest and lowest bills. They would take us back to the unfairness of the rating system when a disproportionate burden fell on a minority of local taxpayers. I must say that I find it hard to accept that noble Lords would wish to lead local taxpayers back to such a punitive and unfair system.
As noble Lords will know, we propose a system where a couple in the highest band would pay twice the amount they would pay in band D and three times the amount in the lowest band. This will avoid disproportionately high bills in high-priced areas and will mean low bills for low-priced properties across the country. If these amendments were accepted many people would be paying far more than their fair share. The Government, however, recognise that property values are not a perfect guide to ability to pay. That is why we will limit the bills for the highest value properties to three times the lowest. Attempts to make people in high-value properties pay even more are no more than the politics of envy.
The Committee will recognise that those who can afford to pay most towards the cost of local government will do so. Fifteen per cent. of the cost will be met by the council tax, the remaining 85 per cent. having been raised from national taxation and the uniform business rate. I cannot help feeling from the discussions that we have had both on the first day in Committee and today that noble Lords opposite on both Labour and Social Democratic Benches cannot wait to get their hands on the incomes of those on middle and high incomes. It is the politics of envy.
The noble Baroness professes a sympathy with those who live in large houses but who have little cash
978
flow. However, here we have an amendment on the Marshalled List that will penalise those very people. Unless noble Lords opposite, again on both Benches, advocate a much more generous rebate system then I cannot help feeling that those people will be seriously disadvantaged by this and other amendments.
I hope that I have made clear the importance that the Government attach to finding the right balance between the number of valuation bands and the relationship between bills actually sent out to dwellings in each band. We believe that our proposals strike the right balance and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The invitation to propose a more generous rebate system is welcome; we shall come to it later in our debates. The Minister says that the compressed banding is to avoid the detail of valuation. Again, what is the balance between dealing with the administration of it and arriving at the right answer? The Minister says that widening the difference between the highest and lowest bills would be punitive. I explained—and meant it—that I was not trying to impose a penalty on those who had the highest value houses. I was seeking a means of supporting those at the low to middle part of the range.
I resent the amendment being described as the "politics of envy." We on these Benches and I am sure Members on the Labour Benches are attempting to make the Bill fairer. The Minister may shake her head but I know my own motives. They are the politics of fairness. On that basis I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooson, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kagan, L.

Carver, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Meston, L.

Ennals, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

[Teller.]

Richard, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

979

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Underhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Killearn, L.

Acton, L.

Kimball, L.

Aldington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Knollys, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Manchester, D.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Byron, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Caldecote, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Northbourne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Faithfull, B.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Geddes, L.

L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

[Teller.]

L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hertford, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Tryon, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wharton, B.

Joseph, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall make provision for a formula to determine the amount of council tax payable in respect of a dwelling in valuation band A where the listing officer has determined that there has been a material reduction in the
980
value of the dwelling caused by the presence of facilities or adaptions suitable for the use of a disabled person as defined under section 24.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 44 refers to the situation of a disabled person's property. Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 the value of facilities needed by a disabled person can be deducted when calculating the rateable value of the property. That reduction would automatically lead to a reduction in the size of the rates bill.
We fear that the Government's proposals for disabled tax relief are much more restrictive in this Bill than under the provisions of the rating Act for two reasons. First—and this is a matter to which we shall return in a later amendment—the range of facilities which will qualify for a material reduction is much more limited under this Bill than under the old rates. I hope that we shall receive support throughout the Committee for the more generous interpretation in a later amendment. Secondly, the banding scheme means that where a material reduction has taken place it leads to a reduction in the bill of the property by one band. Originally there was no such concession, but during the passage of the Bill in the other place the Minister, Mr. Portillo, conceded that special provision should be introduced to ensure that a property moved down a band where a material reduction in its facilities was the result of the occupant being disabled.
At that stage he said that the decision follows discussions with RADAR and other groups and that it will provide fair treatment for people with disabilities who often need more space or special facilities in their homes. It would be wrong for such people to have to pay more council tax because those special features had increased the value of their homes. Therefore, the scheme would restore the relief that people with disabilities enjoyed under the old rates scheme. In 1989–90, the final year, rates relief was granted to about 160,000 properties.
That very welcome and entirely honourable concession or move forward by the Minister was widely accepted. But it leaves a problem. Given that we are dealing with bands, although a property in band D can come down to band C where there are special facilities for a disabled person, or from band C down to band B or from band B to band A, properties which are in band A cannot drop any lower. Therefore, the occupants would have to pay the same irrespective of whether the property had had changes made to it as a result of the occupier's disability whereas people in more expensive properties enjoy and experience a reduction. It is that anomaly, the result of banding, that this amendment seeks to address.
The situation is made worse because of two problems which, I am sure, are familiar to Members of the Committee. As a result of the banding inequalities, to which we shall be returning time and again, in many parts of the country, particularly in the North, very large proportions of properties are in band A—for example, 48 per cent. of the properties in Wolverhampton; 55 per cent. of those in Chester-le-Street; 56 per cent. in Gateshead; 59 per cent. in Sunderland; and 63 per cent. in Tameside. Yet in those areas people who are disabled, very many of whom,

981
proportionately, will be living in those properties, cannot enjoy the relief. That is made sharper because not only are those properties in band A, but the disabled people living in them have both lower incomes and higher costs. Approximately seven out of 10 of all disabled adults are receiving state benefit. Not only do they have lower incomes; they also have a higher cost of living because of the increased costs of diet, heating and laundry, estimated by the Disablement Income Group at about another £60 a week.
We are dealing therefore with a group of people on lower incomes and facing higher costs who will be disproportionately in band A properties. They will experience no discount in their bills by virtue of the fact that they are in the bottom band. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite and the Minister recognise the problem. Since the principle has been accepted for all other categories except those who are the poorest, I hope that the Minister will feel able to make some movement on the matter.
The amendment does not suggest a precise figure. A reasonable approach might be that properties in band A, which have a material reduction because someone is disabled, have a reduction of between 12 per cent. and 12.5 per cent. That figure represents the same gearing down as exists between band B and band A or between band C and band B. It is a suggestion: there may be other ways of dealing with the matter through regulations. There is a problem that the disabled disproportionately occupy band A properties and that they have lower incomes and higher costs, although they can experience no rating relief such as they enjoyed previously. It is clearly an anomaly. We hope that the Minister accepts that. We hope too that the Government will work with disability groups to seek to overcome that anomaly. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Baroness puts forward a very good case, but I cannot agree with it. I wonder whether the proposal is based on the recommendations of disablement groups or is that of her own party. My understanding from RADAR, BLESMA and other disablement groups, is that they are very happy with the situation as it stands. They feel that they have had many concessions from the Government. They have been in close touch with the Government. Therefore, I oppose the amendment on the ground that the disablement groups are happy with the situation as it is.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The amendment is based on a RADAR paper. In other words, I have complete confidence in the statement that RADAR, MENCAP, the Disablement Income Group and the Association of Disabled Professionals support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): The noble Baroness sees this matter as a problem and suggests that it is an anomaly. I do not accept that. I wish to stress that RADAR is happy with the
982
discussions it has had with the Government and the responses it has received as a result of those discussions. I shall be able to quote from a letter which RADAR sent to my honourable friend Mr. Portillo some time ago on the matter. I shall also be able to quote from a letter sent to me by the chairman of BLESMA on exactly the same point. Comment was made on the very constructive approach of the Government in this matter.
The important point that we must try to remember is that disabled people should not be in the position where they pay more than others simply because they have to live in specially adapted property or in some cases, because an individual is in a wheelchair, in a larger property. They should be in the same position as able-bodied people and special concessions should not be made. Consideration should be given for alterations made to their homes. As the noble Baroness said, we shall be able to get on to the detail of that in connection with a later amendment.
Perhaps I may stick to this particular amendment which seeks to deliver a reduction for the bottom band, the band A dwelling, where the value has been reduced because it has been adapted for a disabled person. We have already provided in regulations made under the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act that in allocating properties to bands, valuers will take into account any special fixtures provided for a physically disabled person which reduce the value of a property; for example, a lift for a wheelchair user. But where such fixtures have increased the value of a property, valuers will ignore them, and they will not affect the banding of a property. It is the only fair way—and the noble Baroness accepts it—to treat such properties.
Once valuation lists have been compiled, regulations under Clause 24 will allow lists to be altered if certain changes bring about a reduction in value which result in the property falling into a lower band. If adaptations are made for a disabled person which have the effect of reducing its value, then the listing officer may alter the list if the reduction in value is large enough to place the property in a lower band. In the case of a band A property, a reduction in value cannot result in the property falling into a lower band because there is no lower band. But the taxpayer is already paying the smallest amount of tax possible for his area. It is entirely irrelevant what percentage of properties in that area are in that lower band. It would not be fair if he were allowed to pay less than others in the same band.
I point out to the noble Baroness that as regards the less well-off disabled people—the noble Baroness quite rightly stressed the success of the benefits policies pursued by the Government—a large number of them are in receipt of various allowances for their disabilities. Those people, particularly if they are on income support, will be assisted. The scheme of disability premiums in income support means that they will be entitled, or are likely to be entitled, to some rebate at a much higher level of income than other, able-bodied people.
I stress that we discussed these arrangements with RADAR and other bodies. Their main concern was

983
very much that a disabled person should not have to pay more tax because of his need for special fixtures or extra space. Perhaps I may quote from a letter from RADAR to my honourable friend Mr. Portillo—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: May we have the date of that letter?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: The date of the letter is 26th November 1991. In writing to my honourable friend RADAR stated:
"I would like to thank you for the proposals you announced on 25 November concerning recognition of the extra space requirements which disabled people have. I am delighted that the Government was able to act so positively. Your officials conducted discussions with open minds and a co-operative attitude".
Similarly, with my interests at the Department of Social Security in war pensioners, I wrote to Mr. Holland, the General Secretary of BLESMA. On 2nd December I received a response which read:
"This was one area which has worried us as we believe that unless an individual was on the margin of a band the concession which had applied under the old rating system would be lost in the majority of cases. The new amendment"—
that is, the concessions that were announced then—
"certainly resolves this and will be warmly welcomed by our membership in particular and by the disabled in general. Perhaps on some suitable occasion you can convey our very grateful thanks to Mr. Portillo and his colleagues".
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel that we have gone far enough in this matter. As I have stressed, those on low incomes are at an advantage in that their premiums in income support allow them to receive a higher income and still get full benefit from the rebates. In view of the welcome received from many of the disability organisations I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to welcome our proposals in this Bill and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will deal with the question of who does or does not support the proposals that are before us today. However, it has been accepted by the Government that there is an anomaly for disabled people who live in properties which are in band A.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness should take care to listen to what I said. I said that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said there was an anomaly, but that I did not accept there was. If the noble Baroness cares to read Hansard tomorrow she will find that that is what I said.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise. I thought that I had heard, and wrote it down at that point, that there was an anomaly. The point is that there is an anomaly whether or not the Minister accepts it. There clearly is. Common sense tells us that that is so. The provision in the Bill applies to all bands except band A. What puzzles me is that this proposal would require very little extra work on valuations and would lead to very little loss of tax raised but would make a very great difference to the, perhaps small, number of individuals who are affected. I find it quite puzzling that having
984
accepted that there is a point in looking at how the homes of this group of people are affected by the proposals, one group within that group is not to obtain the benefit. I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find this a most interesting amendment and I understand the logic that there is nothing below band A. But I do not understand the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, when she says that the majority of disabled peopled live in homes in band A.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may correct any misunderstanding. I said a disproportionate number; in other words, disabled people were not scattered across bands. A disproportionate number would be in band A by virtue of their poverty and high costs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Indeed, I accept that is exactly what the noble Baroness said—a disproportionate number. I really wonder what the noble Baroness meant by that. Can she quantify it? I cannot support the amendment today because I would need to see some sort of substantiation of figures.
The Minister has been very understanding in terms of disability in agreeing that each one should move down a layer. If it was really proven that there really is a disproportionate number of people he might well be persuaded to look at it again. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence that we have had produced here today has clearly established that point. I should like to have more factual information.
I ask the Minister to investigate and ascertain the proportion of disabled people who would not benefit from the rebate system. If it is to be so fully rebated that they will not have to pay anyhow, then there may be no point at all in creating some sort of complicated formula that will only establish something that will be met in another form of need. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment as it stands.
Lord Henley: Obviously I cannot go as far as my noble friend asks. I cannot, off the top of my head, give her the proportion of people with disabilities who are in receipt of one benefit or another, or the proportion of people who would be entitled to a full rebate. The important thing to remember is that, whether or not they are entitled to a rebate, those people with disabilities in band A are paying the lowest possible rate of council tax. Therefore, they cannot possibly be paying more because of their disability; they are in the lowest rate. There is not, therefore, any anomaly as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested. I hope that she will recognise that that in no way lessens the undertaking given by my honourable friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may come back to the Minister on one point. It was made clear that the properties in band A would mostly be in certain areas in the north. For example, in London I believe there is hardly a property in that category. Do the pensions and disability benefits that are paid to people vary according to different areas? Or will those

985
people who are living in those lower banded properties in the North be getting a disproportionately higher benefit?
Lord Henley: In the main all benefits are the same, irrespective of whatever part of the country the individual claimant happens to live. My noble friend will know that there are certain variations in some of the premiums available in income support in relation to residents in nursing homes and residential homes but in the main all benefits are the same in all parts of the country.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have deliberately tried not to be party political or provocative about this matter. I genuinely believe that there is a real issue here that reflects some of the anxieties expressed.
I am entirely appreciative of what the Minister and his colleagues have done in terms of the other bands. Given that the Government have a structured banding system—and the response of reducing properties by one band for the disabled is an entirely honourable and proper way forward for which I am very happy to give credit—it was interesting that when pressed the Minister told us that the letter he received expressing appreciation came the day after his honourable friend's announcement: one day after. Quite rightly they were delighted that a substantial part of the problem had been addressed. It was only subsequently, when the judgment of RADAR, DIG, and disability groups had had time to reflect on the Minister's statement, that they realised that the properties in band A could not, by definition, be covered by the Minister's response. That is why I have a letter from MENCAP saying that it supports this amendment, which is designed to ensure that disabled people living in a house in band A will be able to get a reduction in the amount of council tax that they are liable to pay where the house fits the Government's own criteria for a reduction in bills related to disability. That is why I have received similar support from RADAR, from DIG and from the Association of Disabled Professionals; because the anomaly came to light notwithstanding the appreciation of the moves made by the Government.
Perhaps I may respond to the helpful comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. She asked whether the numbers were disproportionate. I wish that we could give that information, but clearly no one can do so until the valuation exercise has taken place. We shall then see. I have to say that if the numbers in band A are large then there is clearly an injustice. If the numbers in band A are small, then clearly the expense and the problem of overcoming it is relatively trivial. Either way, I should have hoped that we could get some support for this amendment. At the core of the issue lies the fact that in large parts of the country between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. of property will be in band A. In other words, in poorer parts of the country, in the north, large sections of property will be in band A and there will be virtually a flat rate tax.
That means that it is regressive. It means that the disabled, with lower incomes and higher costs, are not
986
protected against that regressiveness. I am not confident about the right way to address the problem. It might be that we simply gear down by 12·5 per cent., as you would for a person with a similar income in a different part of the country, with higher property values, whose house, as a result, went into band B. That seems to me a sensible and administratively simple and convenient way forward. The amendment does not do that. It asks the Committee to recognise that there is an anomaly. If the Committee were minded to accept the amendment we could then hope that Ministers would come back at Report stage with a remedy for it. I should like to take the opinion of the Committee.
The Earl of Balfour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I cannot see what Clause 24 has to do with the amendment. I may be wrong but I do not see the connection.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall come to Clause 24 at a later stage. It deals with the description of what counts as a material reduction with regard to facilities within the house. With this amendment we are saying that on the presumption that we agree on what "material reduction" is, property in band A should then enjoy the same kind of proportionate reduction as the property of other disabled people.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kagan, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dainton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

[Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elevel, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Arran, E.

Acton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Aldington, L.

Astor, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Auckland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Balfour, E.

987

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Belstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blatch, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Byron, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Norfolk, D.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Denham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elibank, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Erroll, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Flather, B.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Seldson, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Strathclyde, L.

L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Halsbury, E.

L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hertford, M.

[Teller.]

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

HolmePatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Tryon, L.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waddington, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Joseph, L.

Wharton, B.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I call Amendment No. 45. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 46 to 48.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("dwellings") to end of line 40 and insert ("in each region of England shall be determined as follows—

(a) the range of values for band A shall be no more than is sufficient to include 18 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

(b) the range of values for band B shall be above the range for band A and no more than is sufficient to include 18 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

(c) the range of values for band C shall be above the range for band B and no more than is sufficient to include 18 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

988

(d) the range of values for band D shall be above the range for band C and no more than is sufficient to include 18 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

(e) the range of values for band E shall be above the range for band D and no more than is sufficient to include 13 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

(f) the range of values for band F shall be above the range for band E and no more than is sufficient to include 8 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

(g) the range of values for band G shall be above the range for band F and no more than is sufficient to include 5 per cent. of all dwellings in the region;

(h) the range of values for band H shall be above the range for band G.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

(a) region shall have the meaning of the standard economic region, except that Greater London and the rest of the South East shall be treated as separate regions;

(b) the percentage of properties falling into each band shall be determined with reference to the number of properties and their values on the list the listing officers propose to compile at the date specified in section 22(5) below or as that date may be modified by section 25(3) (b) below.".).

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 46 seeks to provide an objective way of securing what some Conservative Back-Benchers in another place want to provide in a non-objective way. We have already had a full discussion of the way in which the single banding system and the single valuation system in different parts of the country will have different effects. In some local authorities the number of effective bands will be drastically reduced. I could read out a long list of authorities where, as far as we know, the percentage of properties falling into each band is heavily skewed to the top, to the bottom or to the middle. But I shall spare the Committee a full list. In Barrow-in-Furness 61 per cent. of properties are in band A and not a single property is expected to be in bands E, F or G, while in Stratford-upon-Avon only 1 per cent. of properties are in band A, 5 per cent. are in band B and 53 per cent. are in bands F, G and H. In Islington no properties are expected to be in bands A and B but 49 per cent. are expected to be in bands F, G and H. It will be obvious that for an individual local authority and for clusters of local authorities in regions there will be a tax with in effect only three or four bands rather than the eight bands proposed in the legislation.
The number of effective bands in a local authority area does not in itself determine the expenditure needs of a local authority—for example, Barrow-in-Furness needs to spend money on local services, as does Stratford-on-Avon, Islington and the county councils concerned outside of London. Neither does it reflect the ability to pay of the people in those areas. Of course there are people who are better off in Barrow-in-Furness and in Islington; but the vast majority of people in Barrow-in-Furness who find themselves in band A will be paying very much the same as the rest of the people who are in bands B and C. There will very nearly be a flat rate tax. Because of the expenditure needs of the local authority in Barrow-in-Furness, the charge in band A will be very much higher than it will be in some other areas.
Perhaps I may put the relationship between income and the banding system as graphically as I can. In London, we know from the Family Expenditure Survey that there are 16 per cent. of people in the

989
lowest income band but that only 1 per cent. of properties are expected to be in the lowest council tax band. However, in East Anglia where nearly 16 per cent. of the people are in the lowest income band, 24 per cent. of properties will be in the lowest council tax band.
I have been giving examples of individual authorities, but if one takes the northern region as a whole, 46 per cent. of properties are likely to be in band A. What we have is very nearly a flat rate tax. That matter causes concern not only in Barrow-in-Furness and in Islington but also in some of the leafier suburbs and exurbs around London. People like Sir Rhodes Boyson are breathing fire about it and seeking to table amendments.
It is important that we should establish the basis upon which the proposed amendments should be conceived and that we should establish so far as is possible an objective basis which could apply in any region to secure an adequate range of bands. What we have in effect is a sleight of hand: we have the pretence from the presence on the face of the Bill of an eight-band process with a 3:1 taper, whereas, in practice, for individual local authorities—and, after all, individual local authorities will raise the council tax—we have far fewer bands and a far flatter tax. We think that the objective way to deal with the situation is to secure, as Amendment No. 46 would do, that there should be a maximum percentage of dwellings in any one region which falls into any one band.
Of course, what we are proposing here is nothing like as good as replacing the council tax by a proper system of local government finance; we are accepting that there is to be a banding system because that is what the Bill says and we are seeking to amend it. We are trying to make it less unfair than it will be in practice and we are trying to expose the fact that the banding system which is on the face of the Bill is not in fact as fair as Ministers claim. Without being a dramatic change, we believe that what we have proposed is certainly a change which will be widely welcomed and will increase the fairness and therefore the acceptability of the council tax. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: The amendment before the Committee would have the effect of making a false valuation of the dwellings in England. That cannot be right. I certainly admire the hard work that is done by noble Lords and noble Baronesses on the other side of the Committee. I know from past experience on other legislation how often I have received appeals from worthy bodies asking me to support amendments that they have drafted. Yet when I have studied the legislation I have realised that such amendments would have a most unfortunate result. I am certain that that is the reason for the present amendment appearing on the Marshalled List.
In the first place, the amendment talks about regions, which applies only in Scotland. Secondly, it would force the valuation officers to place all the dwellings in every billing authority's area into bands based on a percentage ranging from 18 per cent. for bands A, B and C down to 2 per cent. for band H. That is the result of a complete misunderstanding of
990
the proposals in the legislation. I know that England and Scotland are rather different, with the English setting of the council tax commencing in Clause 30 of Chapter III and going on to Clause 36, where it states that,
"D is the number … applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D".
Perhaps Members of the Committee will turn to Clause 93 on page 63 which refers to the setting of the council tax. I should like to read the clause as if it applied to England. It says that a billing authority shall in respect of each financial year,

"(a) set an amount of … council tax, as appropriate, to be paid in respect of a chargeable dwelling in their area listed in valuation band D (whether or not there is such a dwelling in their area) as specified in [Clause 5(2)];

(b) determine the amount of council tax to be paid in respect of a chargeable dwelling in each of the other valuation bands specified in [Clause 5] in accordance with the proportion mentioned in [Clause 5(1)]".

In other words, a range from six to 18. I ask my noble friends to insert into Clause 36 between now and Report stage those very important words in brackets,
"whether or not there is such a dwelling in their area",
for the sake of clarification.
As I understand the legislation—this is the result of my own research—under Clause 21 the Government have wisely chosen the valuation of dwellings to be assumed as at 1st April 1991 when the market was at its lowest. The same date (1st April 1991) is in Clause 86 for Scotland. I should have thought that the average house value in England in April 1991 would have fallen into the band D range of between £68,000 and £88,000. I cannot speak for Wales, but the equivalent range of band D for Scotland under Clause 74 is between £45,000 and £58,000, and that is about right.
If the majority of houses—assuming roughly the same number of houses—in a district council's area were below band D, which would result in the council tax for "D" houses being relatively high, that authority should—I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm this point—receive a greater—for want of better phrase—rate support grant than an authority which had most of its houses in, let us say, band F, where the council tax for band D would be lower to raise the same amount of money for the same number of houses.
Under the old rating system, an authority that had a high proportion of low value properties received more in rate support grant than an authority with high value properties. That is the point that I wish to put forward. If I am wrong, my noble friends on the Front Bench would have every right to shoot me down in flames; but I am sure that I am about 98 per cent. correct.
6 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I was going to speak more immediately to the wording of the amendment and observe that there will clearly be some dissatisfaction in Barrow-in-Furness when, under the proposed arrangement, a number of houses which would formerly have been in band A find themselves in band C or D. That is an inescapable consequence of

991
the additional complexity introduced by the amendment. The great merit of the Bill had always seemed to me that it was of considerable simplicity. That can of course bring injustice. Members on the other side may well hold that view, but there are also injustices in introducing more arbitrary elements. That is what will happen if the amendment is accepted.
Members on the other side of the Committee made great play about how arbitrary it is if one falls on one side or the other of a band valuation in monetary terms. How much more arbitrary it will be if one is on one side or the other of a boundary in regional terms so that the same house—if one is talking about houses built to a model—on one or other side of the boundary will artificially fall in different bands. I concede that they will no doubt be in adjacent bands; but they will be in different bands. That is an inevitable consequence of adding to the arbitrary divisions in this way. It is surely undesirable.
I am not altogether sure that Members opposite have their logic right. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, gave a clear indication of the logic underlying the fair rates philosophy advocated by Members opposite. His point was that when we are talking about a property element, or a property tax —here we are talking about a property element —a tax should be related directly to value and paid in proportion to value, on the grounds that residents enjoy an amenity, to be calculated in relation to the notional rental value which is directly related to the property value. That principle is clearly not being followed if we monkey about with the banding in the way suggested.
The proposal contained in the amendment is arbitrary in two ways. If we are to depart from the Bill's simplicity—I agree that we can be over simple—the proposal should have merits which overcome the additional arbitrary elements. I for one am not persuaded that the amendment has such merits.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am surprised that the noble Lord should take the view that he has just taken. He is accusing Members on this side of the Chamber of trying to introduce arbitrary proposals; but I thought that my noble friend had made it clear from the start that he was trying to be helpful to those Conservative Members of Parliament who had expressed anxiety about how the banding as proposed in the Bill would affect certain parts of the country.
The amendment is a serious attempt, as I see it, to try to meet those anxieties, and they are very real. Undoubtedly there is a suspicion, in London plainly and many parts of the South East, that they will be clobbered both ways. There will be more properties within the higher bands, so they will receive a lower grant than they would if there were a better distribution of property values throughout. That is one of the worries. The other worry that Conservative Members of Parliament have expressed is that their constituents, who already bear higher mortgage charges than in the North, will in addition bear higher rate charges. My noble friend was trying to deal with those problems. The amendment is an attempt to be helpful. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his allegation that we are trying to be unhelpful.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I very much welcome the helpfulness of the noble Lord, but I should be interested to hear him reconcile the position he has taken with advocacy of a straight property tax, which is the position of Members opposite. It is most charming that the noble Lord is being so helpful, but I cannot understand how he can be so while simultaneously advocating a straight property tax about whose principles he was so eloquent only a couple of days ago.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If we were discussing a property tax, we should be discussing a different Bill; but we are not now discussing a property tax. We may be discussing it later this year. We may be discussing a Labour Bill later this year but, with respect, we are not discussing it now. I should very much like to be discussing it now but we are not; we are discussing the Bill brought forward by the Government. To attempt to put down an amendment which would put forward Labour Party proposals would be out of order because it would be considered to be a wrecking amendment; and the noble Lord would be the first on his feet to accuse us of trying to be party political.
We are trying to improve the Bill. That is the job of the Opposition in this place, and that is what we are trying to do. I hope that the Minister will take our proposals seriously and give a serious answer as to why they are not relevant and helpful.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee can be assured that I shall take all the amendments seriously; but have to say that my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Renfrew have most elegantly demolished all the arguments. I cannot better what they have done. My noble friend Lord Renfrew was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that there was an inconsistency—my noble friend was not comparing what we advocate on these Benches and what is advocated on the Opposition Benches—in what is being advocated by the Benches opposite about the systems and the amendment. That is the inconsistency that was referred to.
Perhaps I may deal with the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Balfour. He asked us to include the words "whether or not" in Clause 36. The words that he quoted are from Clause 93(1) (a) which related to the setting of taxes in Scotland. For England, the same point is dealt with in Clauses 30(5) and 40(4), so we do not believe that it is necessary to deal with it again in Clause 36. My noble friend is most diligent in these matters and I am sure that he will read what I have had to say and will certainly come back if I have not satisfied him on that point.
The linkage set out by my noble friend Lord Balfour between rate support grant and the banding system as he understood it is absolutely right. However, I also point out that if we were to accept an amendment later on the Marshalled List which prohibits the Secretary of State from making any link between the banding system and the rate support grant, there would be a serious vacuum in how the Secretary of State would distribute grants.
The Government believe that regional banding would not only be unfair but that it would also give

993
rise to unacceptable regional distortions. Distortions arise because at the boundaries of regions there would be a sudden change in the band, and therefore the council tax bill, of otherwise identical properties. That would be a problem and the point was well made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
To take a specific example, taxpayers in Enfield would be delighted to find that their homes had been allocated to a lower band than similar properties of the same value just over the border in Hertfordshire. The house in Enfield would be in a lower band because, on average, house prices are higher in London than in the rest of the South East. This is despite the fact that house prices just outside London are often higher than in the capital itself. Such anomalies should be avoided.
Noble Lords should be clear what regional banding would mean. It will result in higher bills in low price regions. A typical property in the North would pay the same as a typical property in the South East, regardless of the fact that earnings and average property prices are lower in the North. That also would not be fair.
The Government recognise that there are areas with high property prices. Under the council tax, in any street, the most valuable homes will attract the largest bills. Similarly, in any town the most valuable homes will attract the largest bills. The same rationale applies not only to larger homes, but also to homes in more expensive parts of a town.
A three-bedroom house overlooking the park will be more expensive than an otherwise identical property with a less scenic view. It is fair that council tax bills should reflect this. The same logic applies across a county, a region or the whole country. I hope that the amendment will either be withdrawn or rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not understand a word of what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said. I shall read it carefully and attempt to understand it with the gloss put on it by the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, struck me as sticking his neck out in a quite extraordinary way. He accuses us of being arbitrary, but he speaks from a position—if it is physically possible—at the top of both the twin peaks of arbitrariness which are the fundamental basis of the Bill. The council tax is arbitrary first because it is based on one peak of arbitrariness by having a totally arbitrary banding system. There is nothing logical or rational about the banding system put forward in the Bill. Secondly, there is a completely arbitrary relationship in the council tax which is to be charged between one band and another. The more arbitrary the tax is, the cruder it is. The more one tries to reduce the differences and the crudeness, giving more bands or finding a more rational basis for the differences in the tax to be paid between the bands, the less arbitrary it is.
I do not claim that we have produced something free from arbitrariness; far from it. The points made about the differences at the margins of regions are perfectly valid; but they are not as bad as what is proposed in the Bill. That is certainly the case.
994
For many years I have had great difficulty with people who do not understand one of the fundamental principles of property taxation in local government finance. They do not understand the difference between rateable value and rate poundage. It is an understandable error which occurs all the time. It led the Conservative Party to panic in Scotland and introduce the poll tax. The Conservatives did not understand that the fact that rateable values increase does not mean that more money is being collected from the rates.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not mean that. It means that individual properties are either paying more or paying less, but there is a zero sum gain.
I expected to hear that from public platforms, and read it in letters and in the less well informed press; but to hear this afternoon that misunderstanding from the Government Front Bench between rate poundage and rateable value took me aback.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that if the valuation of the house increases, the multiplier increases with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not understand what is meant by "the multiplier".
Baroness Blatch: Whatever one pays in the pound, if there are more pounds in rateable value, one would pay more times that amount.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If a council raises £1 million from a rate base of £1 million, the rate poundage is £1 in the pound. If a revaluation takes place which increases the rateable value from £1 million to £2 million, the council may levy a rate of 50 pence in the pound.
Lord Henley: Not Labour councils.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amount levied has nothing to do with the revaluation. A council needing the same money levies a rate at 50 pence in the pound. If there are differences in the increase, in other words if some properties increase in value more than others, then they pay more. If some properties increase less than others then they pay less. But it is a zero sum gain.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, lived a long way from Scotland where the trouble began, but perhaps I may quote an example to him. In the Tayside region at that time, the total rateable value was virtually identical to what it had been before. The problem was that there had been such variations within the regions that some values had halved and others had doubled or trebled. So when the value was fixed, what some people had to pay increased enormously and what others paid decreased. The rateable values stayed exactly the same. That was what was wrong with the system. Had the revaluation taken place in England, 13 years later

995
instead of seven years later, as in Scotland, the whole problem would have been greatly exacerbated. The noble Lord must understand that.
I believe that the argument should end there because it only partly relates to banding. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is trying to move away from the rating system, not towards it. That is where the illogicality exists.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to take up the same point. Members of the Committee opposite may wish to prevent me doing so, but I gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and I should now like to comment on the same point, if the noble Lord will allow me. We are all perfectly clear on the poundage. Where the noble Lord is mistaken is that after revaluation councils have always tended to increase the poundage; it creeps up and up. If it is a Labour controlled council it does not creep up, it rushes up.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may complete the interventions and then the noble Lord can reply to all of us. We understand that the poundage is adjusted in order to make sure that the yield does not change and the noble Lord is quite right in his description. However, he has not covered the situation where the occupier of a property with a rateable value of £200 pays a certain amount in rates. If the size of the property is considerably increased and there is a revaluation, the property may be revalued at £300. There is no adjustment of poundage on that. The property has a higher multiplier; more rates will have to be paid on it because it has a higher rateable value.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has a higher value.
Baroness Blatch: That is the only point I am making to the noble Baroness. When one revalues a property to a higher value, the owner will have to pay more in rates to the local authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think we must go back to primary school. This situation is difficult to believe. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, understands precisely the difference between rateable value and rate poundage. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, also understands that difference. However, I am certainly not sure the Government Front Bench understand that difference or they would not have panicked in the way they did as regards Scotland and they would not be panicking as they are now.
The Minister referred to subsequent revaluation and made a valid point. This amendment does not address that point but we shall deal with it on later amendments. We have tabled amendments which will tackle the problem which the Government are creating for themselves by providing that the values which will be assigned now will apply in perpetuity unless a property changes hands or some exceptional circumstances arise as determined by the Secretary of State. All the fears about revaluation will come back in the form of a multiplier—I hope I may use the Minister's words—if this legislation is adopted without amendment.
996
This amendment is concerned with a very different matter. The unfairness of the banding system comprises two elements, its crudity and its flatness. In attempting to amend it on an incremental basis, as it were, rather than rejecting it as a whole, the only thing we can do is to attack the flatness—we have already done that in existing amendments—and the crudity. That is the purpose of this amendment. I shall not divide the Committee, although in the light of the answers given from the Government Front Bench I am sorely tempted to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird)Before I call Amendment No. 47 I must advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 48 due to pre-emption. I now call Amendment No. 47.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, leave out lines 25 to 40 and insert:

("Greater London

Range of Values

Valuation band

Values not exceeding £52,000

A

Values exceeding £52,000 but not exceeding £68,000

B

Values exceeding £68,000 but not exceeding £88,000

C

Values exceeding £88,000 but not exceeding £120,000

D

Values exceeding £120,000 but not exceeding £160,000

E

Values exceeding £160,000 but not exceeding £210,000

F

Values exceeding £210,000 but not exceeding £420,000

G

Values exceeding £420,000

H

The noble Baroness said: In the matter of regional banding we return to something of the same issue we have already discussed. No one would argue, and no one has attempted to argue, that property prices are consistent across the country. In addition, property prices fluctuate differently across the country. For example, prices have fallen recently in the South-East but risen a little in the North, although there are, of course, still big differentials. In London average property prices are now about 136 per cent. higher than in 1983, whereas the national average is 123 per cent. higher. I mention that to deal with an administrative point first. Fluctuations in prices are different in the different regions. Therefore if we adopt a regional banding system, there will be less of a need for revaluations because prices will tend to move in proportion within the different regions. However, that is only one aspect of this problem.
Once a week the London Evening Standard has an article which shows readers what they might purchase outside London if they were to sell their properties in London. The newspaper has attractive photographs of mansions set in rolling acres which cost approximately the same price as a small, modest
998
property in London. I do not know whether—I adopt the terminology used earlier today—that is the journalism of envy. However, it is certainly something that must catch people's attention a good deal.
High property prices are evident in London and the South-East. The London Research Centre has revealed, using figures provided by the Halifax Building Society, that London's house prices are something of the order of 45 per cent. above the national average. House prices in the rest of the South-East are 35 per cent. above the national average. In the North house prices are 25 per cent. below the national average. Data of the Halifax Building Society for the whole of 1990 show that the average house in London and the South-East would come under band E; that is, has a value between £88,000 and £120,000. However, the average house in the North or the North-West would come under band C; that is, has a value between £52,000 and £68,000. I am referring to figures that were published in November.
A league table of London boroughs reveals the problems that exist in certain boroughs. The average house in Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea comes under band G; that is, has a value between £160,000 and £320,000. In five other boroughs houses fall into band F. Those figures confirm the fears that have been expressed so vividly and loudly in another place and even more strongly outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. The figures confirm the fears that London and the South-East will lose out as a result of this legislation.
The proposal for regional banding is designed to allow high and low values to be taken more fully into account. Why is this important? As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, mentioned earlier today, this is not just a question of the compression of the bands; it is also a matter of the grant arrangements. As under the former rates, where property values are low, the rate base is low. The grant, in effect, is like an extra ratepayer. One is looking to grants to make up what the tax is not raising. Where values are low, the grant will be higher and, conversely, where values are high the grant will be low. Taxpayers will be expected to find a higher proportion of the total costs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has already mentioned a figure of £300 million of grant that would have been lost in London if the council tax were introduced in the year 1992–93. I believe that for 1993–94 the figures are even higher because of the area protection grant which currently applies to some London boroughs. That would add another £100 million to that figure. In other words, we are talking about £400 million of grant likely to be lost to London on the basis of this tax. The adverse effect of the loss of area protection grant does not affect simply a small number of what Members on the Benches opposite might regard as rather dubious boroughs but will also affect the flagship borough of Wandsworth.
CIPFA informs us that gaining regions are those with relatively low property values where the number of equivalent band D properties is low in relation to the actual number of homes, or where there is a

999
relatively high number of relevant adults per equivalent band D property. Losing areas are those where the converse applies.
The banding that is proposed in this amendment is more realistic than the provisions contained in the Bill. By concentrating on London I am not ignoring the problems in other parts of the country. However, it is in London that the problems are starkest. We know of the difficulties of finding housing in London that is affordable in the widest sense. That is not so bad once one is on the property ladder, but getting started is an appalling prospect. The cost of mortgages for high priced London properties can literally bankrupt a person.
We will all be aware of the publicity that has been given to the doctor leading a research team who is moving to the United States with his team. There was an article about that doctor in the Observer last weekend which spelt out vividly how his problems arose from the cost of housing. The article stated the doctor's monthly take home pay was just under £1,500 but he was paying £913 for a mortgage and £175 for a mortgage protection policy. That came to a total of over £1,000; in other words, two-thirds of his monthly income. In other words, the cost of housing is not a true reflection of wealth. It was no surprise that in that article people from outside London were quoted as being somewhat puzzled by that case because they do not experience the same difficulties.
The Government argue that a regional banding system will create anomalies on the boundaries. I suggest to the Committee that no more anomalies will be created than between, say, Carlisle and Kelso or between Ludlow and Llangollen because the principle of regional banding is accepted and is reflected in different banding in the Bill for England, Scotland and Wales. The anomalies arise because this is a property tax and not from regional banding. The anomalies result from the fact that a tax based on property does not reflect ability to pay.
The greatest anomaly will occur on the England-Wales border. I assume that in their examples of anomalies the Government have pointed to some of the worst cases that they could find. The worst under their own banding proposals are on the Welsh border where on the English side the average household in an average detached house will pay £490 whereas on the Welsh side of the border the amount will be £199. If the Government are serious in arguing that an anomaly of £90 or £100 is unacceptable I am not sure how an anomaly of almost £300 could be considered acceptable.
It was put to me yesterday by an academic who understands the finer esoteric points of local government finance that a question had been put to him which illustrates the interdependence of property values for the purposes of this tax and central government grant and the unfairness of the Bill. Someone approached him saying, "I have a house in London worth £80,000 and I pay an enormous mortgage on it. Am I, through tax to central government, going to be supporting someone in the
1000
North who has a house which is also worth £80,000 but on which he has a small mortgage?" The answer is yes. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I must tell the Committee that I find it very strange that, Members of the Committee having railed against the perceived iniquities of national valuation bands for so long, we now have before us an amendment that proposes not eight regional bands but six. The amendment amalgamates five of the standard regions into two super regions before going on to split another into two sub-regions. The net result is only six regions and six sets of bands.
The Committee has already listened to our arguments against regional banding and I do not propose to repeat them after such a short interval. Let me instead remind the Committee of the distortions which regional bands would cause. House prices in Milton Keynes and neighbouring Northampton are similar. With the bands we propose, a £65,000 three bed semi-detached home would be in the same band whether in Milton Keynes or Northampton. With regional banding the property in Northampton would be in a higher band than the one in Milton Keynes and hence face a higher bill for the same level of services simply because the average property price is higher in the South East than in the East Midlands.
The effect of regional banding is clear—lower council tax bills in regions with high average property values such as the South East and London at the expense of higher council tax bills in low average value regions. That may be defensible if house prices did not vary throughout each region. However, as I have already said, property prices vary greatly within a town, let alone a region, and also in a village. While there is no doubt that properties in much of the South East are more expensive than in much of the North, the difference is not as great, nor as uniform, as many people believe.
I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness would create many more anomalies. She cited Scotland, England and Wales. They are already different, unless the Labour Party in returning to the old rating system intends to revalue on a constant basis all properties in England, Scotland and Wales. People in Scotland and Wales would be interested to hear that. There would be many more anomalies as a result of the amendment. We support what is proposed in the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry that no other Member of the Committee feels moved to take part in the debate. I do not profess to understand the relevance of variations within a village. Of course there are variations within a village under any system.
I had hoped that we might have heard a little more from the Minister about what might be done to deal with the London problem. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to an article which appeared in a newspaper the other day. The Times recently reported that there would be some sweeteners for London. The noble Lord was accused of reading too many

1001
newspapers. I do not think that The Times is what it was but even so I do not disbelieve it on this issue. The Minister said two days ago that these were not the final words on the matter of London. Perhaps the Minister wishes to speak; she looked as if she was about to stand up. I am happy to give way.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness regarding the relative differences in affluence in London as compared with the North, which she made much of. She drew particular attention to the size of mortgage repayments in London. It is true that on average people in London borrow three-quarters as much again to purchase houses as people in the North. We have looked at the family expenditure survey to establish disposable incomes after deduction of housing payments—which include mortgage and rent—as well as income tax and national insurance. The highest weekly disposable income is in London and the lowest in the northern region. People in London have more left to spend after deducting their housing costs than people in other parts of the country. There is no reason to believe that someone with a house worth £80,000 in London will necessarily have a larger mortgage than someone with a similarly priced house in the North.
Baroness Hamwee: I should be interested to see the detail of those figures. The Minister has told the Committee that the Bill was introduced not because the poll tax was unfair but because it was perceived to be unfair. One of my reasons for proposing the amendment is the perception of unfairness as well as the reality. I do not believe that we shall be able to take the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 4, line 19, after ("order") insert ("in the third year following the coming into force of this section and not less frequently than in every third year thereafter").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 50A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 74, which is the Scottish version of the amendment. There have been scattered references in previous discussion to the issue of revaluation. Some have been historical references made with great passion. The passion has usually been reserved for the injustices and hardships caused by belated revaluation rather than by revaluation itself.
It has been noticeable that the interventions from the Government Benches have always concerned the cowardice of Labour governments in failing to have revaluations. It is therefore all the more curious that we should find ourselves with a Bill which proposes a crude valuation system which is not proposed to be subject to revaluation on a regular basis. I suppose one could justify values which were frozen and never changed.
I remember doing market research in the Republic of Ireland in the late 1960s and sampling households on the basis of the valuation roles applicable in the
1002
Republic of Ireland at that time. The valuation rolls had not been subject to revaluation since 1856. They appeared to work to some extent. You could justify that position; say "Leave them alone" and never touch them.
The Government do not do that in this Bill. They say, first of all, that the Secretary of State has exceptional powers to order revaluation; but, secondly, they say that there should be revaluations on change of status—in other words, revaluation when a property is sold. An extraordinary state of affairs can then arise with two identical properties; one of them may be sold when prices are very different and thus come into a different band from the identical property next door.
A lot of passion has been expended on the injustice of charging people more if they improve their properties. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was very eloquent on that point earlier. If the property is improved, under the provisions of the Bill one escapes if the property does not change hands but if it changes hands anything that has been done to it is taken into account. One could not conceive of a more arbitrary way to deal with valuation.
The idea of perpetual valuation with such changes seems to us to achieve the worst of all possible worlds. Basically these amendments propose a three yearly revaluation. It need not be a complicated process. For reasons of which we do not entirely approve, the valuation will be carried out very economically. The Government are proud of that fact. They cannot accuse us of wasting vast amounts of public money by demanding a three-yearly revaluation on their terms but the amendment seems to us to be a protection against injustice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Surely the Bill as set out will do a great deal to protect people from the injustice which has occurred, in particular where people have bought a house at a low figure in relation to their income and what they could afford and that house has increased greatly in value. So long as the individual remains in the house, which is the situation of many people whose means have declined over the years, there will be no increase to face. On the other hand, if the property deteriorates or suffers in any way, those people will be able to apply for an immediate revaluation downwards. That would do a great deal to protect them. On the other hand, if the property is sold and money realised, it crystallises the improvements that have been carried out and it is only fair that at that point the person buying the property should buy on the new basis.
I believe that that arrangement is one of the most marvellously fair provisions in the new tax. For that reason I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I notice that there is no Scottish based peer on the Front Bench opposite or behind the noble Lord. I appreciate that it is Thursday and his colleagues may have had to return to Scotland (for which I do not blame them at all). However, as they are not there, I wonder whether he could tell us

1003
whether CoSLA (the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) is happy with the Scottish amendment to which he spoke.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may deal with that point now and get it out of the way. Amendment No. 74 does not come from CoSLA but from the Law Society of Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: So the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has not been consulted, or those who would do the valuation and so on. This is simply a Law Society amendment. I thank the noble Lord for that information.
6.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Offie (Lord Strathclyde): I appreciate the reasons why these amendments have been brought forward. However, I am not sure that the noble Lord fully understands our proposals. The amendments introduce statutory revaluations into the council tax arrangements at a maximum of three-yearly intervals. Three-yearly revaluations will simply not be necessary under the council tax. It was an undoubted fact that revaluations under the rates were very unpopular. That is why there was no revaluation in England or Wales from 1973 until they were abolished in 1990. It is also why there was such a clamour after revaluation in Scotland in 1985 and at that stage there was a push to get rid of the rates.
It is no good for the noble Lord to say that the same amount of money was raised. If that had been true, people would have been quite happy with their revaluations. The fact is that they were not happy.
The reason for the unpopularity is that, while in themselves revaluations are fiscally neutral, providing simply for redistribution of the overall tax, they inevitably produce winners and losers. Added to that is the fact that the disturbance caused by a revaluation provided excellent cover for local authorities to increase their spending and blame it on the revaluation. One can understand why we were concerned so far as possible to reduce the need for revaluations with the new system.
We recognise that that will not necessarily remove the need altogether for revaluations. That is why we included Clauses 5(4) and 74(3) in the Bill. At this stage it would be impossible to predict how frequently such a revaluation might be required. However, I think it would be simply wasteful to require a revaluation, with all the associated expense and turmoil, every three years or more frequently if there were no need for one at such intervals. It is much better to have a power which allows a revaluation to be ordered when it is needed, as in the Bill at present.
The noble Lord offered the example of two houses which were next-door to each other. He said that if one were sold after a period of years it would change bands. It would not change bands except when it had been substantially altered and improved. As my noble friend Lady Gardner said, that would be quite right. I hope that I have explained the situation in the Bill and in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has no difficulty in identifying that I am not an expert on this subject. If my examples were inadequate, I shall try to improve on them. There is expert advice on the subject available to the Government. That advice entirely supports our case. I quote from the response by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to the consultation document on the subject. The RICS notes that paragraph 2.30 of the consultation paper states that:
"There would be no need for regular or frequent revaluations of properties under a system of banding".
Indeed that is what is proposed in the Bill before us. The consultation paper goes on to suggest that:
"There might be a reserve power for a general revaluation in a particular area which could he used if there had been significant differential movements in the values of different sorts of properties".
That is a half hearted attempt to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I suggested in Amendments No.s 46 and 47, although we were severely criticised for bringing them forward.
The RICS reminded the Government that:
"If the new Council Tax is to be accepted by the public, it must be seen to be fair. We believe that a method of updating the value of the property base will have to be introduced if the Council Tax is to be both equitable and understandable … We believe that the only way that the Council Tax will be assured of a successful future will be if Council Tax payers see a clear, distinct and continuous relationship between the value of their house, the band it is placed in, and the Council Tax bill they receive".
Lord Strathclyde: Because we have this reserve power, if people want a revaluation it will be possible to do it. Under the system which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to introduce, a revaluation will have to be done every three years whether or not people like it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has revived my worst suspicions about the Government's intentions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us, when we said that there was a secret agenda, that there were sweeteners being planned and that the Government were planning to make things easier for Conservative voters by subsequent changes to the Bill which they were not willing to put on the face of the Bill itself, we were told that that was nonsense and that they had no such ulterior motive. We were not told in so many words that the Bill is the last word on the subject. Ministers were too cautious for that. However, we were certainly told in essence that it was the basis on which the council tax would be introduced. We are now told directly by the Minister that it will be done in another way and that the reserve power will be used for exactly the purpose that we consider a regular valuation should be used.
If I were given the choice of having a reserve power by the Secretary of State to introduce a revaluation when he, a Conservative Secretary of State, thinks it politically convenient, or having on the face of the Bill a provision that there should be a regular revaluation, I know which I prefer. I know which the public prefer. They will want the Government to come into the open and state their intentions rather than hiding behind reserve powers.

1005
I am convinced that it is a matter to which, in one form or another, we shall return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall establish an additional band to those set out in subsection (2) above that shall be for dwellings provided and occupied solely in respect of a person's employment.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is grouped with a number of amendments tabled by other noble Lords. It is designed to protect those occupying tied property and other property by reason of the individual's work. It establishes a separate band for such properties.
One of the difficulties of a property tax is that the property which people occupy because they are in an occupation which requires them to live in a particular property bears no relation to their income. Since such occupation ceases with the job they have no long-term material benefit from the property either.
Agricultural workers are an obvious example. On the commercial market the type of houses in which they live might well fetch much larger sums than they can possibly afford from their own incomes because of the age, size or location of the property. There are many other such examples. The amendment provides a simple way of ensuring that people in that situation will be protected from unrealistic bills. It would be the simplest and easiest way to administer such protection.
The provision would not be perfect because, as we have said and will go on saying, the property tax is not a perfect tax. No doubt some people may be let off bills that they could afford. However, we have to find the balance. I suggest that it is sensible to place such properties in a separate band. The first band would probably best reflect the likely income of those involved but that would be a matter for the Secretary of State under the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before we continue, will the noble Baroness indicate whether she expects the amendment to be debated with the others in the grouping?
Baroness Hamwee: Yes. Perhaps I should have stated on the record that the amendment is grouped with Amendments No. 53, 68A, 75, 76A, 90, 103 and 127. I understand that that grouping was agreed with the proposers of those amendments.
Viscount Mountgarret: The noble Baroness's amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 53 and 75 in the names of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and myself. I do not believe that Amendment No. 68A is relevant to this discussion. In principle I strongly support Amendment No. 51. I recognise that it relates to people who live in tied cottages. Amendments Nos. 53 and 75 relate purely to agricultural workers. Nonetheless Amendment No. 51 provides for others who, under the requirements of their duties, live in houses appertaining to their employment.
1006
Under the rating system a property occupied for agricultural purposes by someone employed or engaged in agricultural or related activities was valued by the valuation officer at the agricultural rate. That was less than the normal domestic rate. Amendment No. 53 suggests that such a property, if accepted as being occupied for agricultural and related purposes, shall be valued at half its value. Some might feel that that provision is too generous. But we are discussing a principle.
My noble friend Lady Blatch was good enough to write to me on 17th January. I wish to quote from the letter because I believe that the thinking is misguided. She said:
"It would not be fair if we were to make special arrangements for people whose homes were tied to their jobs, or for properties which are in agricultural use, if that meant that someone else in an otherwise identical house (perhaps a pensioner with an even lower income) were placed in a higher band and so paid more council tax".
With respect to my noble friend, that argument is flawed. There is provision in the Bill for rebates and reduction in the amount of tax payable by those on a lower income, pensioners and so on. Therefore I put the argument the other way. An agricultural worker may live in a very good house on an estate or farm. Employers try to give their employees the best possible accommodation. It is likely to be in excess of what the employees would be able to afford if they had to buy or rent their own property. By giving the best possible accommodation one has the best chance of retaining one's valued and skilled staff. It does not seem fair for those employees to be charged a higher rate of tax than would be payable by a domestic resident.
I do not wish to plead the cause of poverty for farmers. The noble Baroness is right. The amendment relates to tied cottages. However, farm incomes have fallen by an average of 17 per cent. this year. The industry is not in a healthy position to take on extra, rather onerous charges. I hope that when the Minister replies he will bear that factor in mind. The state of agricultural wages is, and always has been, geared to the fact that employees occupy a house rent and rates free. If the occupants have to pay the council tax, or the employer has to pay it for them—we shall discuss that at a later stage—it does not seem entirely fair that the rate at which they pay the tax should be the same as the domestic rate.
The argument may be that it is up to the agricultural industry—the agricultural wages board, the NFU and so on—to gear the wages of employees so that they take account of their outgoings. I sincerely agree with that argument. When we discussed the poll tax, I hoped that the wages of agricultural workers would be increased fairly substantially to take account of the fact that they had a personal charge to pay which they did not have to pay previously. Unfortunately, that has not happened and, so far as I can see, it will not happen. Unless and until it does the amendments ought to be considered and taken on board by the Government.
7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Amendment No. 103 tabled in my name is grouped with this amendment. Therefore, it might help the Committee if I tried to explain it. The amendment addresses much the same problem but is somewhat different and tackles a wider set of problems.
The classic example of the problem that my amendment addresses is that of a period farmhouse in a highly sought-after area. If the property were offered on the open market it would fetch a very high price and therefore the listing officer would be forced to put it in a high band. As in this case the house must be occupied as part of the farmer's job—indeed it might be a vicarage in which the parson has to live—that would be plainly unfair as has already been mentioned. The high band would not reflect the income and wellbeing of those individuals. Indeed, Ministers have written to say that:
"this will mean that in areas where there is a demand for farmhouses by people who are not farmers any increase in the value of a farmhouse over what a farmer might expect to pay in the context of his ownership of the entire farm will be ignored".
Although I should not have been capable of such lucid phraseology it implies that the Government are prepared to accept that such properties should be placed in a lower band. However, there is nothing in the Bill to provide for that. For instance, does the assurance apply only to farmhouses? What about the clergy?
In order to clarify the position my amendment would, first, ensure that those living in houses tied to their work have their council tax fairly valued, be they farm employees, clergy or policemen and not only farmers. Secondly, my amendment would ensure that those living in tied houses which do not have an agricultural restriction on them are charged council tax at the same rate as a similar property not so restricted. Perhaps the property was built before the restrictions came into force. In both cases the property is tied to the job.
Assurances were given on 20th November 1991 by my honourable friend Mr. Portillo to my honourable friend Emma Nicholson in the Standing Committee of another place and appear at cols. 217 to 219. However, my honourable friend's assurances, which of course I welcome, were not spelt out. Therefore, the Committee will note that the amendment puts meat on the bones of my honourable friend's assurances that such properties will be devalued by the listing officer, by stating that the listing officer must assign the property to a lower band.
Being of a suspicious nature it occurred to me that it would be possible for my honourable friend's assurance to mean nothing if the listing officer merely devalued the property from the top of the band to the bottom of the same band. I am sure that was not the intention of my honourable friend. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this necessary clarification.
The Earl of Balfour: If a property is let to a tenant who has security of tenure it is bound to be valued less than if it were available on the open market because it
1008
would not be able to be sold in the ordinary way. Under the groupings of the old rating system the owner-occupier was rated highest. Then came the private tenant, then the local authority tenant and finally and lowest the tied house. There have always been a number of extremely important tied houses in the public sector; for instance, those of hospital caretakers, janitors in schools and so forth. Such a house should not be valued as though it were a privately-owned house in its own right. I have no doubt that the provision may be made by regulations. However, it needs to be at least introduced within legislation in order to satisfy everyone who must deal with the Bill, be it a local authority or an individual.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl has raised an important point. We are concerned not only with agricultural tied cottages but with all tied accommodation. The Government must explain how the reduction in the value of the property due to the fact that it is connected with employment, whether as that of a janitor or agricultural labourer, is reflected in the valuation. I suspect that they will say that the matter must be taken to appeal because I do not see in the Bill any provision under which such a restriction can be taken into account on the valuation that is proposed, and certainly not on the crude and makeshift valuations which are occurring at the moment.
That is the answer that must be given and not that there should be special treatment for tied accommodation. I hope that the Government will resist any amendment which encourages farmers or anyone else to pay too little because they are providing tied accommodation. Such a provision would encourage tied accommodation itself. We must make a distinction between the value of the property, which would have to be dealt with in the valuation or by appeal on the valuation, and the income of the person concerned, which would have to be dealt with by rebate. I do not believe that on the face of it we can give our support to these amendments.
Lord Monson: It is a pity that so many amendments have been grouped together because they are not all the same. It would have been better to take separately, for instance, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Of the various amendments his is better in most respects, although I have a qualification to make. While I consider that paragraph (a) is totally worthwhile and meritorious I am not sure about paragraphs (b) and (c), for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. When people are obliged to live in accommodation by virtue of their employment—for instance, caretakers, janitors, lighthouse keepers, some foresters, some full-time chauffeurs and some farm workers —there is a case for accepting the type of proposal that has been made. However, in cases where the accommodation is provided as a perk, has all the amenities and is not isolated nor convenient in any way, there is no particular case for giving favourable treatment. As was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, it

1009
would be better to pay people more money and allow the employees to stand on their own feet—a good Thatcherite principle—and pay their own tax.
Lord Monkswell: I rise again tonight to speak about fairness. The amendment that we are discussing raises two problems. First, it gives power to the Secretary of State and, secondly, it introduces the concept of taxing people differently depending on their employment. We should reject the amendment for those two reasons. It will be seen to be unfair, and it will be unfair, to tax people at different rates just because of their employment. Further, it gives power to the Secretary of State to do this.
I hope that the Government will resist this amendment. I am sure that they would not wish their Secretary of State, or far less our Secretary of State when we come into office, to have to face the criticism that a decision of his or hers is going to result in unfair taxation. Effectively some people will be taxed more than others because of their employment, and that surely is wrong.
Viscount Mountgarret: I must make one point on what the noble Lord has just said, and that was that it would be unfair to treat people differently by nature of their employment. The Government have already taken on board the fact that clergy will not pay a council tax if it is deemed that the church itself is in occupation of the vicarage. The church or diocese, or whatever the appropriate fund is, will pay. They will be liable for this tax and not the incumbent.
We have already got an anomaly, if indeed it is an anomaly. People have to occupy their properties for the betterment of the performance of their duties, and their pay is structured to relate to the fact that they occupy those premises, in the old fashioned term, rates and rent free. It seems unfair for those people to suddenly find—well, it was unfair that they should have to pay their poll tax—that the council tax should be based on the value of that property when their occupation of it is necessary for the carrying out of duties to which that property is related.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have no sympathy with these amendments at all. If we are talking about a property tax we must try to protect the integrity of the property base. If you suddenly introduce special properties which shall go outside the normal valuation process, then you interfere with that integrity. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, instanced the farm worker who might live in an attractive farmhouse. Because that is so does not reduce the value of the farmhouse as a desirable property. There is no reason why the value should be reduced because a particular person lives in it; but that is what he seems to be seeking to do by his amendments.
There are better ways of dealing with the property rather than undermining what I believe to be the integrity of the taxable base. First of all, if the income of the person occupying the desirable property is of a given level, he will be able to claim from the state. If the income of a person is above the state benefit level, then it is up to the employer to ensure that his
1010
employee should pay any additional council tax by virtue of the fact that he occupies that property because it is essential for him to do so for his job. That is the answer that the Government ought to give. I hope that that is the answer that the Government are going to give. If they do I shall find pleasure in, for once, supporting them.
Lord Monk Bretton: I feel that there is every justification for particularly the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley. This is really the position that always existed. I cannot believe that it was wrong that in the old days the tied cottage was given certain reliefs under the old rating laws. That situation should be preserved, and it is well justified. The properties that I am talking about are in fact worth less because they are tied to land than they would be if they were not tied to land.
If we are to be able to look after land and to continue agriculture there is need for a certain amount of this kind of accommodation. It will not be possible to look after the land without this type of accommodation. I hope I make that point clear. But the question to which I and my noble friend want an answer is, what is the lister going to do under the valuation proposals in this Bill?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: This has been one of the most interesting debates so far on this Bill. No doubt it is a prelude to many more that we will have on this subject. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising it, and to my noble friends Lord Mountgarret and Lord Stanley of Alderley. I fully understand the difficulties that my noble friends have with the current state of agriculture. As an agriculture Minister I know the problems that that industry is going through at the moment, but I am not at all convinced that creating another special case for agriculture is the way to deal with that problem.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret talked about the principle involved, and that is what we must discuss now. I was slightly confused by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was not sure whether he was for or against the principle of allowing people in certain occupations to have reductions in the council tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart that the integrity of the tax base has to be preserved. If there are special needs that are reflected in the value of the house, then that fact should be reflected in the valuation. If they are in an individual's income then they should be reflected in rebates. But there should not be special treatment for any one group.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful for that clarification. One thing that noble Lords opposite have failed to understand is that one of the reasons why tied cottages have been so important in recent years is that the socialist legislation governing the Rent Acts has meant that people had to have tied cottages, otherwise employees would have security of tenure often for

1011
many generations, and that has been one of the difficulties in housing in the rural areas. Amendments Nos. 53 and 75 propose that such homes should be registered with the local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Would the Minister allow me to intervene? He should not reject our support when we are giving it to him, by misrepresenting history. After all it was a Labour Government who freed up tied cottages by providing a requirement that those concerned could be rehoused in local authority houses. It was the Labour Party that in fact attempted to deal with this problem. Conservative Governments have never attempted to do so.
Lord Strathclyde: The point is that if you had an entirely free market in the private rented sector you would not need tied cottages. That is true. If there was freedom for people to come and go in private rented accommodation, then the position could change.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 75 propose that such homes should be registered with the local authority, and their value for council tax purposes should be halved. Amendments Nos. 90 and 127 provide for the removal of registration. This entirely overlooks the nature of the exercise, which is one of placing properties in bands and not ascribing an exact value to them.
Amendment No. 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley, proposes that properties occupied in connection with agriculture should be assigned to an unspecified lower valuation band than would otherwise be the case. Amendment No. 51 would oblige the Secretary of State to establish an additional band for properties where residency is tied to the occupier's employment.
My noble friend Lord Stanley talked of the agricultural restriction. The point is quite plain. Where an agricultural restriction exists it will have a material effect on the value of the property. Depending on what the valuation is, it may not affect the banding in which it is placed but it will have an effect on the overall market value. Where an agricultural worker lives in a house with no agricultural restriction, then it is right that that market value is the one that is most appropriate to fit into the banding. If a farmer is willing to put his agricultural worker in a splendid house, in the best possible accommodation, as my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said, then it should surely be for that farmer to pay for the increased expenditure of his worker. That would be the right way to deal with the problem.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret made a comparison with the Church. My noble friend Lord Howe will later deal with amendments relating to the clergy. The essential difference between that and what we are dealing with here is that the Government have reached an agreement with a central authority, the Church, that the Church will be paying the council tax of all its vicarages in one go. Nobody is being excused the payment of the council tax. That approach is not possible when one is dealing with thousands of individual farmers.
1012
The amendments seek also to provide that payments made by an employer in that way should not count for income tax. Income tax is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not a matter for this Bill. Nonetheless, I know that he is already giving careful consideration to the income tax implications of the council tax but, as noble Lords will be aware, in the context of changes which are not due to take place until the 1993–94 fiscal year.
As I said, I feel that the biggest problem with the amendments is that the principle is wrong. The problems arise from the difficulties currently affecting the agricultural industry. It is through those structures that we need to find solutions to the problem and not by these provisions.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I suspect that it is a matter to which we shall return on Report. I look forward to that occasion.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Baroness replies perhaps I can make one or two points that may be helpful. As I understand it, my noble friend says that there is no need for a special arrangement for a tied house in a lower band because the listing officer will already have taken account of the matter when valuing the property. I hope that I understood him correctly. If my noble friend is saying that it will apply to the farm house—certainly letters from Ministers have said that—does it apply also to the rectory and the tied cottage? As I understand it, if it is a tied house, the listing officer will put a different value on it than if it were free.
If that is what my noble friend is saying, I may not be so hopelessly, dreadfully sad. I am not sure that he is saying that. That is, however, what I am seeking to persuade him to say. I am not sticking to my amendment as such. We await what my noble friend will say when we come to my Amendment No. 110. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will look at that amendment carefully. It brings out the point that he raised concerning appeals. It ties in, and I am sure that we can reach some agreement.
A point which I did not understand and which no one else raised is the question of the two farm workers living in identical accommodation one of whom has an agricultural restriction on his cottage and the other does not. My noble friend tells me clearly that the one with the agricultural restriction on it could well have a lower price than the one without. Therefore, one farm worker—it is easier to deal with farm workers—living in a restricted cottage will be in a lower band than the man next door receiving the same wage whose cottage is not restricted. That may not be too bad, but perhaps I can remind my noble friend that many cottages were built before the agricultural restrictions came in. I am therefore not happy about that and I hope we shall return to it on Amendment No. 68A.
My amendment has not yet been called and I have a right to have it debated again on Monday and indeed on Report. I do not know whether my noble friend wants to reply to my first point regarding how the valuation will take account of a tied house.
Lord Strathclyde: Let me clear up the two points. First, with regard to tied cottages, my noble friend did misunderstand me and I apologise if I did not make myself completely clear.
There is no reduction in market value simply because a house is tied. A tied cottage can become vacant within a short time. Therefore, it is valued on the basis of its market value. Where there is an agricultural restriction or another legal restriction which affects the full vacant possession market value, then clearly the value is reduced.
That brings me to the second point of my noble friend. There is a possibility that two identical cottages may exist side by side, one with an agricultural restriction and one without. The agriculturally restricted cottage could be in a different band. My noble friend makes a good point. Some of the cottages may have been built before there was an agricultural restriction. I am happy to look at that. But I would not want to give my noble friend any hope that we will be willing to change our policy.
Viscount Mountgarret: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may make a point. He referred to the possibility that a lower value house could suddenly become that much more valuable if it were no longer used for agricultural purposes. In that respect perhaps I can refer to Amendment No. 127—I did not speak to it earlier because I did not want to prolong the debate —which provides for the eventuality of that happening. If it were to happen, then the house would revert to the normal banding. I hope that my noble friend will bear that point in mind.
Baroness Hamwee: It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I understand the point that the Minister made regarding the distinction between a tied property and a property which has a specific restriction on it. I hoped that we would have more help with regard to valuations as a means of alleviating the problem we identified yet again—that of ability to pay.
Amendment No. 51 does not simply deal with agricultural workers. There are many other examples of jobs such as caretaking and, perhaps school teachers and park keepers. The list is no doubt longer. The Minister said that it was a matter to which we may return. I hope that we shall return to it on Report, not only at the instigation of those on these Benches and Back-Benchers on the Government side. The issues raised are clearly worrying and it does not appear to me that the questions asked have been satisfactorily answered. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on the Bill be resumed at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said, My Lords, there are two draft orders before you this evening; of these, one affects two European parliamentary constituencies in England and the other seven European parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.
The purpose of the two orders is the same—to ensure that the next European parliamentary elections are fought on the appropriate boundaries. The European parliamentary elections Act 1978, as amended, requires that European parliamentary constituencies, or EPCs as I shall call them, are made up of whole parliamentary constituencies. When the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions have completed a review of parliamentary constituencies and an order is made implementing their recommendations, the commissions are obliged to consider what effect the changes in constituency boundaries have on EPC boundaries and to conduct what is called a supplementary review of the EPCs concerned.
The last changes to EPC boundaries were made in February 1989 before the European Parliamentary elections in June of that year. Since then, both the English and the Scottish Boundary Commissions have carried out interim reviews which affect the boundaries of European parliamentary constituencies. The purpose of these orders is to realign the EPC boundaries with the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies which comprise them.
The background to the English order is as follows. In February 1990 the English commission completed an interim review of the constituencies of Buckingham and Milton Keynes. This has resulted in alterations in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies which also affect two EPCs, Bedfordshire South and Oxford and Buckinghamshire. In that review the creation of the new parliamentary constituency of Milton Keynes South West involved the transfer of three wards from the Buckingham constituency into the new constituency. The number of electors involved was 16,523.
The commission's provisional recommendation was that the European parliamentary constituency boundary should be redrawn to include the whole of the Milton Keynes South West constituency within the Bedfordshire South EPC. Hence the whole of the borough of Milton Keynes would be within one EPC. In consequence of this the commission also recommended that the new EPC be named Bedfordshire South and Milton Keynes. Not a single representation was received objecting to the proposed new boundary.
There were, however, several objections to the proposed name of the Bedfordshire South and Milton Keynes EPC and this necessitated the holding of a

1015
local inquiry. This was held on 4th April 1991, presided over by Mr. Michael Harrison QC, as assistant commissioner.
At that inquiry the assistant commissioner considered both the current and proposed names for the EPC and a number of alternatives that were suggested. He recommended that the name North Chilterns was the least unsatisfactory. His recommendation was accepted by the commission and this is the name proposed in its report and in the order before your Lordships' House today.
Turning now to the Scottish order, this simply gives effect at the European level to the adjustments to parliamentary constituency boundaries which your Lordships approved on 25th October 1990. The source of these adjustments is the slight alterations which are made from time to time to the boundaries of local government areas. It is important to keep all of these boundaries in alignment with one another but on this occasion only some 500 electors are affected across the seven EPCs and the proposals have generated no comment from either Members of Parliament or from the general public.
These orders implement the recommendations of the two commissions in full and substitute the new EPCs for the existing ones. Once the draft Orders in Council are approved and made by Her Majesty in Council, the new boundaries will come into full effect at the European parliamentary election to be held in 1994. I commend these orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not going to oppose these orders. The reason is that they are based on the good and well-tried British system of elections; that is, that the elections will be based on parliamentary constituencies and that the Member will represent real people in the European Parliament. That is unlike some other European countries where the representatives are party hacks rather than direct representatives of the people. Therefore, I shall not oppose the orders tonight, although the noble Viscount may know that I am not in favour of a directly elected European Parliament.
I voted against the Bill when it came before the other place. I resigned from government because a three-line Whip was imposed which I was not prepared to obey. I am not in favour of a directly elected Parliament in Europe. If there were to be a Parliament at all, I would very much prefer that the representatives there, as was previously the case before direct elections, were responsible to the national parliaments which could keep an eye on what they were doing and see that they did not become too uppity. At the moment some of the representatives are getting a little uppity. Some of them believe that this Parliament and the other national parliaments should be subordinate to the European Parliament.
I believe that I have already made the point that our constituency system is a very good one. It makes sure that the representatives in the European Parliament represent real people. The reason why I am speaking
1016
tonight is that I have a very nasty fear that before long either the European Parliament or the Commission will say, "It is not good enough that the United Kingdom should elect its representatives to the European Parliament by one method and other countries elect them by another".
The European Parliament may very well seek to impose on this country a standard method of electing people to the European Parliament by virtue of proportional representation which is perhaps not based on the representation of real people. I hope I can have the assurance of the noble Viscount that the Government will resist that to the bitter end. I doubt whether the noble Viscount will be able to give me that assurance, but it would be nice to have it. It is an interesting point to raise. I support the orders for the reasons I have mentioned. Long may these orders continue to be brought before another place and this House.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, having heard the excellent explanation for the two orders by the noble Viscount, it is not my intention to say much at all. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Stoddart supports the orders, but, having said that, I do not necessarily support what he has said on other matters. Tonight we are dealing with the very simple matter of two supplementary reviews which refer to England and Scotland and are in accordance with the European Assembly Elections Act 1978.
As far as the Opposition are concerned we want to be satisfied that there is nothing at all in the orders which in any way affects the position of the 1978 Act. I am glad that the noble Viscount has stressed that the number of constituencies in the different parts of the United Kingdom remains unchanged as far as the European elections are concerned and the fact that the constituencies must comprise whole parliamentary constituencies. I am satisfied about those matters.
We welcome the orders because they comply with the 1978 Act and carry out the provisions that we require not only as regards the redistribution of European constituencies but all constituencies. I hope that approval is given to the two orders.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have a slight feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has just spoken would not wholly associate himself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I have news for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I fear that he will not get a wholly satisfactory answer to the question that he has put to the noble Viscount.
These orders are entirely reasonable. I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, down the interesting avenue that he was exploring a few moments ago, but I shall resist that temptation. The orders are perfectly reasonable and we support them.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support for the orders from the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Harris of Greenwich. All I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is that we have heard a great deal recently about the

1017
unity of view of the Labour Party on Europe. If his views demonstrate the unity of view in the Labour Party, I hate to think what the views would be if there were to be any disagreement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8.30 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert:
("(5A) An order made under subsection (4) above shall not be valid unless it is made on or before 31st March in the financial year before the year preceding the year in which the change is to take effect.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a short and, I hope, simple amendment. There are provisions in the Bill for the Secretary of State to substitute different proportions from those set out in Clause 5(1) and to substitute valuation bands other than those set out in Clause 5(2) and (3). That has implications in a number of areas. Administrative matters also arise in reassessing properties and amending databases. Computer software may need to be dealt with and, on a separate matter, the distribution of grant may be affected. It is not unreasonable—this matter was raised with me by CIPFA—to suggest a date after which an order cannot take effect at the beginning of a financial year; in other words, to give those concerned an opportunity to consider the implications and to act on them. The amendment proposes a minimum of one year. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: If the amendment were accepted, notice of at least one full year would need to be given before the ratio establishing the relativity of bills in each valuation band could be changed. I can tell the Committee that the Government do not intend altering this ratio. As my noble friend Lady Blatch explained to the Committee, the 3:1 ratio between the highest and lowest bills achieves the right balance. It is fair to all.
However, if the Government were minded to alter the ratio, we would of course do so in good time. In particular, we fully understand that local authorities would need to be given time to absorb the change. I entirely take the noble Baroness's point about
1018
software. I am bound to say, however, that I am confident that authorities would not need as much as a year's notice. One would have to take a view at the time.
The amendment would also require notice of at least one year before different bands were introduced. I have to tell the Committee that a year might not be long enough. The valuation office has been planning for the valuation now in progress since April last year, when our intention to introduce the council tax was announced. It had two years' notice. Few people suggest that the valuation could have been completed in less time.
As the Committee knows, one of the attractions of banding is that frequent revaluations are not needed. Even though property values may have changed, a large number of properties would be in the same band both before and after a revaluation. That is an important point which bears repeating. Banding means that revaluation does not affect all dwellings. Only when there has been a significant, long-term shift in relative house values would a general revaluation be needed. Local taxation should not be subject to short-term fluctuations in the property market. Our proposals ensure that it is not.
There may be a need for a general valuation and that is why the Bill provides for one. If that were the case, it would be announced in good time. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that answer. It was worth raising the matter and having those assurances on the record, not that I would doubt the good faith of the Government or indeed of any government. All governments would want to see a provision implemented in a moderately sensible way when it came down to that kind of detail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I hope that she will think again about that statement. I have great misgivings about the good faith of all kinds of governments. The noble Baroness may have such misgivings as well.
Baroness Hamwee: Yes, I do. I had not intended to be quite so controversial with that comment. However, one would hope that any government would understand the practical matters that arise.
With regard to valuations, the amendment does not suggest that there should be notice of just a year. It suggests at least a year—in the words of the amendment, on or before the preceding 31st March. However, on the basis of the assurances given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Persons liable to pay council tax]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("a resident") and insert ("an occupier").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 58, 60 and 67. This is intended to be a helpful amendment. There was quite a considerable debate in Committee in another place on this subject. I was not convinced from reading it that the Government have given an adequate reason why they should wish to abandon the definition of occupation, which is well established over 25 years under the General Rate Act 1967, in favour of a definition of residence.
When they abandoned the definition of occupation for the purposes of the poll tax considerable difficulties arose. One of the definitions of residence was whether the person concerned kept his or her possessions in the home. In the leading case of Bradford v. Anderton—Anderton being a merchant seaman who claimed that his residence was his merchant ship—it was found that his residence was his home in Bradford because he kept his possessions in the home. However, in another case which did not reach or need to reach the courts the same kind of test was applied to Terry Waite, who after all kept his possessions in his home in Lewisham at the time that he was a hostage in the Lebanon. Lewisham Council decided—I am sure correctly and not least on humanitarian grounds—that it would not be right to charge him for the poll tax during the time that he had been a hostage in the Lebanon. Therefore the definition of keeping possessions in the home does not really work.
In the absence of a clear definition of a main or sole residence there is not an adequate definition. I fear that the Government are in danger of prolonging the rather confusing legal situation that arises over the definition of a residence, whereas the definition of occupation has been well established for many years, is not subject to legal doubt and could save the Government and therefore the taxpayer a great deal of time and money. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: We have considered this matter carefully and discussed it at length with local authority practitioners. Local authorities saw advantage in the use of the word "occupier" since the term, although nowhere defined in statute, had been the subject of many judicial decisions concerned with rateable occupation. We concluded, however, that its use in the context of the new tax would not produce sensible results in all cases.
Rates were, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us on the first day, a tax on the beneficial occupation of property. The council tax is a tax in respect of chargeable dwellings which takes account of the number of residents. As the Bill itself depends on residence, it would be strange to attach liability to people on the basis of who would be liable under the law of rateable occupation. To be sure, the two concepts are not wholly dissimilar. Thus the order in which residents are to be liable under Clause 6(2) is similar to the way in which it was the paramount occupier who was liable to rates. However, there are cases where the person who would have been the rateable occupier is not a resident of the dwelling: for example, certain dwellings owned by charities, cases
1020
where an employee is provided with accommodation for the better performance of his duties and some dwellings where the residents were licensees.
In such cases where the dwelling is the sole or main residence of a person, it is right that he or she should be liable. Therefore, it would be necessary in any event to modify the doctrine of rateable occupation to bring that about. But rather than change an old-fashioned doctrine to make it fit, it seems sensible to provide a modern basis of liability for a modern tax.
In the majority of cases the authority will send a standard bill to the household. That bill will be paid. The liable person or persons will be the residents of that property. That is the common-sense approach. In the case of a household with one resident adult which is entitled to a discount there can be no doubt who the liable person is. There can be no difficulty in identifying him or her in those cases. In other cases it will be no more difficult to identify the liable person than identifying the person with the paramount interest under the rates. When there is no resident we propose that it will be the owner who is liable. Authorities will have to take steps therefore to identify the owner of the property. But that is no more difficult than was the case under the rates where the owner of unoccupied property was also liable.
Our proposals provide local authorities with the simplest and easiest way of assessing liability. We have set out clearly the order in which liability is to be assessed. It will be the owner-occupier or the tenant where such people live in the property and the owner where there is no resident. Everyone understands the question, "Where do you live?". But I doubt whether people would readily know whether they were in rateable occupation of a dwelling.
I must emphasise once again that the council tax is not the rates. It is, therefore, not necessarily appropriate to use the same criterion on which to base liability. Rateable occupation is a rather old-fashioned concept for an old-fashioned tax. I would emphasise that we have reached the conclusion that residence is a sensible basis for the council tax after very careful consideration and advice from those with detailed knowledge of such matters. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to say that that sounds to me very much as if the Government are putting ideology—that is, their hatred of the rating system—ahead of common sense. Rateable occupation did not cause difficulties. There were no significant problems with definition, and if there were they were resolved a long time ago, whereas the concept of residence, which the Government have taken from the poll tax, has caused enormous difficulties and is continuing to do so because there are tribunals throughout the country giving different judgments on a day-to-day basis.
When the Minister says that using the concept of occupation would not produce sensible results, he is flying in the face of the evidence about the way in which courts and tribunals are interpreting the law. I believe that the proof of that is to be found in the Bill. The noble Earl said that Clause 6(3) gives a series of

1021
definitions of what is meant by a "resident"—so indeed it does; and in a subsequent amendment we shall have a discussion on that matter. However, it is a very complex series of definitions. It does not resolve some of the issues to which I have in a very short speech drawn attention. The fact that it is not adequate is recognised by the way that the Bill provides that billing authorities will have the ability to identify an individual to be charged the council tax in cases, for example, of houses in multiple occupation. Again we have amendments to cover that point. But that would not be necessary if the definition of "resident" was clear and unambiguous. It would not cause the difficulties which I have anticipated and which the noble Earl has denied will happen.
I do not think that there is any ideological animus on our side in what we propose, but I very much fear that an ideological animus against the rates is leading the Government astray on a matter of sheer practicality of administration.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may make a speech. I make that plea because I do not want to be charged on this occasion with having interrupted a speech before the noble Lord had finished.
Noble Lords: We are in Committee.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful.
It is interesting to note that before it acquired its name the community charge was known in Whitehall as "the residents' charge". It was eventually renamed because it was felt that the difficulty of "residents' charge" was whether it was "residents" or "residence" because manifestly it was not a charge on a residence; it was a charge on a resident. It was felt that that could have given rise to much confusion. However, after I left the Government it was changed to the community charge.
When charging a person it is quite different, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, from a charge on rateable occupation of a property. In cases—and I am rather persuaded by my noble friend's argument—where there would be no liability for the council tax but there would have been a liability on the grounds of rateable occupation, it seems somewhat strange to call in aid a term from the rating legislation—namely, the "occupier"—because then one would presumably need to have a number of exclusions in order to ensure that it would not have the same meaning given to it by the courts in relation to the rating legislation.
One faces an inevitable problem here: whenever such terms are first used they are for some time the subject of judicial interpretation. However, that gradually settles down; the courts make the meaning clear, define the parameters and there is no more problem. If you introduce a tax which is based on an entirely different principle it should take a new name. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described, there have been many cases where the courts have been asked to decide whether the issue falls within the term "resident". Eventually—and it
1022
may not take as long as it did for the word "occupier" as regards the occupation of property—the definition will settle down and we shall be back to a position of clarity.
In the light of some of the difficulties, perhaps my noble friend may be able to say that we can add a definition which will make the position clearer. I am not sure whether the fact that one leaves one's house with one's belongings in it is necessarily a test. As I understand it, different decisions have been or could be taken on the issue. It seems to me that this is entirely appropriate where you are having a tax primarily on people, though it be calculated by reference to one's property. I see that the noble Lord raises his eyebrows, but it is primarily on people. After all, taxes are paid by people, not houses. It is, as was described on the first day of Committee and on Second Reading, a tax with a property and a personal element. However, it is a tax on a person who resides in a house and who is therefore a resident. I think that the word is right.
When my noble friend looks again at the matter between now and Report stage, I hope that he will consider whether he could perhaps circumvent some of the possible court cases which may arise by adding a rather clearer and more limiting definition of what is actually meant by "resident". It is certainly not the occupier because that has a specific meaning given by the courts. If the word "occupier" is put into the legislation it would require a new definition with other exclusions in order to ensure that the tax would not apply in circumstances for which it was not intended.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for those historical insights, but the noble Lord bases his argument upon the assertion that every new definition takes some time to settle down in judicial interpretations. The Government are choosing to reject a definition which has already settled down—it was introduced 25 years ago and has been adequately judicially interpreted—in favour of a definition which has not settled down, not merely because that part of the poll tax does not work, but because the poll tax itself does not work. The definition is contained in Clause 6(2). There are six parts to the definition in a hierarchy. It is not a simple definition, by any means.
The difficulties that local authorities will have will be to discover where in that hierarchy any individual falls, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly says, the tax is a mixture of a property tax and a personal tax. Clearly individual liability is a critical part of the tax. I do not see how, within that hierarchy of liability, local authorities will find out who is liable. In his reply, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that everyone knows where they live. All I can say is that the experience of the poll tax is that not everyone knows where they live, and even if they do, they will not say, and local authorities will not be able to find out. The replies are not adequate to the case that has been put which, as I said, is made without any political animus.
Earl Howe: The Government approached this matter with an open mind. We were not biased one way or the other. We were persuaded that the concept

1023
of a rateable occupier was so encrusted with outdated case law—for example, certain types of employees were deemed not to be the occupier when, under the ordinary meaning of the term, they were resident—that we felt that it was better to start with the term "resident" as the basis for the legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Look at the difficulty the Government had with the farming lobby an hour or so ago! I do not believe that the problem has been resolved. I shall think again about this matter and read carefully what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 1, after ("statutory") insert ("assured").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 68. The amendment, again, relates to the hierarchy of persons who are liable for council tax under Clause 6(2). What appears to be missing from that complicated hierarchy is a form of residence or occupancy—I cannot find a better word than that—which has become common after the Housing Act 1988, and that is an assured tenancy. The Government may say that an assured tenancy is covered by Clause 6(2) (e); in other words, by the fact that a person is a resident. When we are talking about other forms of tenancy I should have thought that it would have been as well to be explicit and to include assured tenancies which were introduced by the Government's legislation in 1988. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Is this not a case of where we are dealing with the old Rent Acts and the comparatively new Rent Acts? If I remember aright, the old Rent Acts were consolidated in 1968, and there, of course, the words "statutory tenant" are introduced. I am not sure that the word "assured" would fit in here. The matter is reasonably well covered by the words "a secure tenant" in the Bill. There are assured tenancies and short assured tenancies. They are different. An assured tenancy holds good for six months only, if that is what is wanted. It can hold good for 20 years. The categories need to be considered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All I can say is that the noble Earl did not have the misfortune to sit through the Housing Bill 1988 to the same extent that I did. We had many debates on assured tenancies and shorthold assured tenancies, and I can assure him that the assured tenancy—dubious as we are about its security and political merits—is the common form of tenancy now for private landlords and housing associations.
The National Federation of Housing Associations is anxious that there should be explicit recognition of assured tenancies. It is not just a matter of definition or semantics, under the legislation as drafted it appears that in a self-contained dwelling there would be no adequate distinction as to liability between a lodger and an assured tenant. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want.
Earl Howe: I hope that I can clarify the issue to the satisfaction of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The amendments seek to include assured tenants, as defined under Part I of the Housing Act 1988, as one of the categories of resident on which liability for the council tax will be based.
Assured tenants are already included within the provisions of Clause 6. A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is an assured tenancy for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988, subject to certain exceptions. It may be either a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy. A person who has such a tenancy has a leasehold interest in the dwelling and, if a resident, will therefore fall within Clause 6(2) (b).
There is separate provision in Clause 6 for statutory tenants under the Rent Acts because they do not have a leasehold interest in a dwelling. In addition, secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985 may have a licence only and not a tenancy. Statutory tenants and certain secure tenants would not therefore fall within Clause 6(2) (b) and are included in a separate category —Clause 6(2) (b).
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation and will agree that the amendments are unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall read that answer carefully, but no one should be under the illusion that this is a simple matter, or that the use of the term "resident" has resolved the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 59 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) No person who is a student, student nurse, apprentice or youth training trainee or who otherwise falls to be disregarded under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 shall be liable to pay council tax on the grounds that he is a resident of a dwelling.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was set down as a probing amendment at a time when this place had no inkling of what was intended for students. I was therefore greatly gratified when my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made the matter clear on the first Committee day. His observations were published in Hansard (cols. 830 to 832). I can well see that in one sense my amendment was inappropriate because the system under the Bill is to make dwellings rather than individuals exempt. Individuals may incur rebates, but not exemptions in that sense.
However there was at least a well-meaning point in the tail of the proposed amendment. One can imagine that a wealthy student might own a number of properties, and whereas it may be appropriate that the property that the student occupies should be subject to discount or that the property may be subject to exemption, that should clearly not apply automatically to other properties that that individual might

1025
own. So it was with great relief that we heard that there are to be regulations to exempt dwellings wholly occupied by students, I presume under Clause 4(3). It will of great interest to read the draft regulations. I look forward to seeing them in detail but, as I understand it, the student hostels, halls of residence and houses exclusively occupied by students will be exempt and that will be it. The Bill makes clear that when students live with non-students, the students fall to be disregarded and are, in a sense, invisible to the Bill.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated, the problem arises in that the students may be invisible to the Bill but not to the landlord. That presents a difficulty, but it was made clear by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that the difficulty was disregarded. He pronounced that whether or not the landlord charges them rent to make up what he pays in council tax depends on the relationship between the two; that is, between the landlord and the student tenants. It was a candid analysis of the situation.
It is worth pondering for a moment longer. We may imagine a landlord who occupies a house with four rooms available for letting. If two of the rooms are let to persons who are not students and two to students, it is likely that the landlord will decide to divide the council tax either by five or by four. It is much more likely to be four, so passing the burden on to his lodgers or tenants. He may well decide to divide the amount equally in four so that it falls equally on the students and non-students. So far as I can see, the present regulations say nothing about that. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde made clear that it was a matter for discussion between the landlord and the tenants.
I am not sure that that is entirely satisfactory. Perhaps I should have begun my remarks by saying that it is enormously satisfactory that students in halls of residence and students who are sole occupiers of dwellings will find themselves in premises which are exempt from the council tax. That meets a great part of the problem. I am addressing myself now to perhaps a relatively detailed point. The solution may well lie along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others in Amendment No. 69. Perhaps the matter should be more extensively discussed under that amendment.
I wish to allude to the point because the Government have, to a significant extent, solved the problem for students. One should emphasise how satisfactory that is. The poll tax has not been a happy experience for students and I heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State observe today in another context that it had not been an entirely happy experience for those trying to collect the tax from the students. So this is a happy circumstance.
One other point to throw into the discussion is what happens when a fair rent has been determined. Will the council tax be added to it or not? That point may also merit further discussion. In conclusion, I believe that the Government have gone a long way to meet the
1026
anxieties of those concerned with the burden of taxation on students. I am satisfied, although I feel that specific points still merit clarification.
9 p.m.
Lord Henley: My noble friend referred to Amendment No. 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. My noble friend Lady Blatch will deal with that; I merely refer to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renfrew on Amendment No. 61. The Committee will know that the Government propose that all the people mentioned in the amendment—students, student nurses, apprentices or youth training trainees—will be entitled to the personal discounts. They will not add to the bill for such a property. However, we propose that in certain cases such people will be liable for the tax.
First, perhaps I may point out that my noble friend's amendment makes no alternative proposal, as he said. It suggests that these people should not be liable, but it does not suggest who should be liable. It is perfectly proper to put down such an amendment to draw out the logic behind the Government's proposals but I hope to show the Committee that the provisions in the Bill are logical and there is no feasible alternative.
If a student, student nurse, apprentice or YT trainee—that is, a discounted person—lives with one or more other adults the bill for the dwelling will be the same as if the discounted person were not resident. It will be one or more of the other adults, rather than the discounted person, who is liable for the tax in many such cases. For example, if a student lives with his or her parents, it will presumably be the parents who own or rent the dwelling, and hence it will be the parents who will be liable for the tax.
However, there will be some dwellings where the liable person is a discounted person. These will often be dwellings where one discounted person is the head of the household, or where the household comprises a number of such people.
I shall consider first a household comprising, say, an apprentice and his brother, where the apprentice is the tenant and hence the person liable for the bill, which will be 75 per cent. of the full amount because he is the discounted person. It may well be that he has a low income; in that case, he will be able to claim benefit of up to 100 per cent. of his bill. But if some amount remains payable after benefit, who should be liable to pay it? Should it be the brother, who may have no income of his own and may not be personally responsible for any other bills? Or should it be the apprentice, who pays the rent and certainly has some income? The Government have concluded that it should certainly be the latter—that is, that the general principles of liability set out in Clause 6 should continue to apply.
Let me now look at a dwelling occupied only by students, student nurses, apprentices or YT trainees. This would give rise to a 50 per cent. bill—that is, the property element of the tax only. The residents would be able to have this bill further reduced or even eliminated by rebates if they were on low incomes. Because most students cannot claim rebates, we have

1027
decided that any property where all the residents are students should be entirely exempt from the tax, as my noble friend said. I can assure him that draft regulations on the matter are already in the Library and were put there with the other draft regulations mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blatch yesterday.
In such a dwelling, there is no alternative person upon whom liability could be placed. It must be the discounted person who is held liable. But the Committee should remember that the amount for which they are held liable will reflect their entitlement to personal discount and rebates.
I turn to rents and what the landlord may charge for his various tenants, some of whom might be students and some not. I believe my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has said on a previous occasion that this must be a matter for the landlord as it concerns his contractual relationship with his tenants. We do not think it would be practical for the Government to insist in legislation on any alternative arrangement.
We accept that these are not simple issues, but the Government have considered them long and hard and we are confident we have reached the right solution. We are confident we have identified the only sensible alternative. I hope with that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: That was a most helpful explanation. There are matters which perhaps could be explored further but no doubt that will occur in the context of Amendment No. 69. I am most grateful for my noble friend's helpful observations. I shall hasten to the Library to read the draft regulations. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Where two or more people fall to be treated as jointly and severally liable under subsection (3) above and the persons concerned or any other persons managing the premises agrees, the levying or billing authority shall divide the liability for the council tax equally between the persons who are jointly and severally liable and send separate bills to each of them.").
The noble Baroness said: We are about to discuss a series of amendments on joint and several liability. Under the former rating system the concept of joint and several liability did not really exist although in practice the concept of beneficial occupation led, through a series of court cases, to concurrent responsibility of spouses for a property bill, that is the rates bill. The poll tax has not been a property bill but rather a bill that is levied per capita, whereupon the Government perversely invented the concept of joint and several liability between spouses. That concept has been deeply unpopular and has been considered unfair even within the logic of an unfair tax.
We are now moving towards a property poll tax. We are not at this point challenging the principle of joint and several liability for a property tax between spouses, or that of the property element between spouses. The council tax maintains the principle of
1028
joint and several liability not only as regards the property element within the council tax—that is 50 per cent. of the tax—but also as regards the two personal individual elements of 25 per cent. each. What is more, the council tax extends that provision from the spouses to any two people or more who occupy the same position in the hierarchy of liability, for example between brother and sister who are co-owners, or between two unrelated adults who are co-tenants who then each become responsible for the other's personal element of the council tax. We raised this issue on Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, kindly confirmed in a subsequent letter that our reading of joint and several liability was correct—perhaps unlike his brief at the time.
Each of the following amendments raises a slightly different issue but they all share the common aim of seeking to end joint and several liability for what is meant to be the personal element in the council tax. After all, even under the poll tax, the DoE practice note No. 16—we shall return to that—makes it clear that even between spouses joint and several liability would not normally be pursued where the defaulting partner had the money to pay but failed to do so.
The purpose of Amendment No. 63 is to seek that local authorities provide individual bills at the request of the residents, or the person who manages the premises, where two or more residents fall to be treated as jointly and severally liable. Under the poll tax individual bills were sent out even where joint and several liability operated between spouses. In so far as this tax contains a personal element—as Ministers opposite have been at pains to indicate—we feel the same principle should apply. That would restrict the right to individual bills to residents only of the same status, for example joint freeholders, three tenants sharing a flat and the like. That is certainly a simpler method. It is easier for both the local authority and the individuals concerned to know where they stand. So far as I can tell—I stand to be corrected by the Minister—it is largely financially neutral.
I wish to give one brief example of why this provision might be useful. Three strangers might respond to a newspaper advertisement in which rooms are offered in a three bedroom flat. They each have separate tenancy agreements with the landlord but they share the living room, kitchen and bathroom. The council tax bill is £300. There is no logical basis for the local authority to decide in such a case who should receive the council tax bill or be pursued for payment. The owner cannot be liable because in terms of liability he or she comes further down the hierarchy than the resident tenants.
It cannot be reasonable in those circumstances to expect one tenant to pay the bill and collect a share from the other two, particularly as they may be relatively unknown to each other. If there is only one bill, even if it is sent to a named individual, how will the council know which other residents are also tenants of the property? I believe the concept of joint and several liability will not work if there is no method for the council to discover who is liable.
This amendment proposes a simpler and more rational method for billing and collecting in such

1029
cases. It would simply split the bill equally between those residents who all had the same occupancy status, be that as tenants or as licensees. Each of them would be personally liable for the period when they were resident. Their names would be known to the council and they could be pursued for any arrears in the same way as any other taxpayer. The residents would divide the Bill. They would equally have separate eligibility for rebates because only the liable person can claim a rebate. Yet an amendment such as this would allow us to overcome some of the complexities of swinging from a discount or rebate on the first person to bringing into play the second adult low income discount with all its complexity.
On this side of the Chamber we recognise that the introduction of a second adult low income discount was an honourable move made in response to a problem in which the second adult might have a much lower income than the first person yet the bill applied to both. However, we feel that that response would make the system extremely complex to administer. The amendment would allow for separate bills and separate eligibility for rebates, but each rebate would apply on only a fraction of the bill. So far as we can see, the constituency eligible for the second person discount would be the people who would benefit from the proposal. Therefore, we believe that it would be financially neutral.
We also believe that such a provision would be extremely helpful for those voluntary organisations which offer shared living schemes, for example, under community care programmes. The amendment is strongly supported by the National Federation of Housing Associations.
It is a simple amendment seeking separate bills for people in the same category of liability who are jointly and severally liable together with separate eligibility for rebate. As far as we can tell it is financially neutral. It is infinitely more simple to present and to administer, both for the local authority and for the individuals, than the extraordinarily complicated structure which the Government have so far devised. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to say for the record that I support the amendment, which seems to be entirely logical and appropriate.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness made a perfectly valid point. I should not want to reject the amendment totally out of hand but I should like to stress some of the practical problems with what the noble Baroness put forward and say that we think that it is better to stay as we are and retain the joint and several liabilities.
There are certain practical problems which I shall come to. I start by saying that even where the parties agree to separate bills that is contrary to the basis of the council tax under which it is the dwelling which gives rise to the tax. The amount of tax might vary according to the number of residents but it is a single
1030
amount in respect of the property. It follows, therefore, that all those liable are liable for the full amount.
It is possible for the people who live in a property and who, as the noble Baroness put it, all have the same occupancy status to agree among themselves the shares each will contribute to the bill. However, no separate part of the amount can attach to any individual who is jointly and severally liable with others. I do not think that that causes any practical problems for joint tenants with similar occupancy status. As the noble Baroness will know there will be other household bills which they will have to share in the same way, such as the telephone bill. They might keep records to show who uses the telephone most. They might share the electricity bill, unless there happen to be separate coin meters for each to pay individually. However, the residents will have to agree among themselves how such bills should be divided. I do not think that it would be practical—and one should consider the practical implications—for local authorities to have to send out separate bills, thereby adding to the cost, even if all the residents agreed.
I am trying to be helpful and I recognise that the noble Baroness has raised a perfectly valid point, but I believe that it would be simpler if all the people in the house remained jointly and severally liable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which I shall study. He is right to say that given a certain amount of good will one can apportion the bills. However, there was a second part of the argument that I tried to advance which he has not addressed. That is why I welcome his offer at least to think about the matter to see whether we can move forward.
That second point is that the proposal would also overcome an aspect which I am convinced will be extremely difficult for local authorities to administer, namely, the problem of the second adult resident in the household who has a low income. I identified the problem of a bill falling on two people for which the person eligible for a rebate is the person liable for the tax who has a higher income than the second person, who has a low income. That is why the Minister in the other place helpfully produced proposals for 25 per cent., 12½ per cent. or 7 per cent. discounts and the like in respect of that second adult with a low income. The matter is extraordinarily complicated because that then interlocks with the issues of rebate. The individuals in that household have to do elaborate calculations to determine whether they seek rebate on the first person or the discount for the second person, and their situation may change. My proposal would overcome that complexity and make the position much more transparent to the residents in that household and much simpler for the local authority to administer.
I welcome the Minister's comment that he will consider the matter. If, on reflection and after discussion, he feels that there is some substance to the argument—and I hope that he will explore the matter with the local authority associations which will implement the scheme—then I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to any person in respect of any day when he had an income which would not have exceeded his applicable amount as a single person or where applicable as a single parent for the purposes of entitlement to income support calculated according to Part 1 of the Social Security Act 1986 if he had made a claim for that benefit on any day during the period when the liability arose.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71. Joint and several liability for poll tax only arises when a spouse has failed to pay the bill. Ministers have said that it will apply to council tax from the beginning and that the council could choose to collect the tax from any of the people jointly and severally liable. However, I accept that in practice that is only likely to arise as an issue when there is default on the bill.
These amendments seek to protect the position of a joint occupier or a spouse who becomes liable for arrears of council tax because the person named on the bill has failed to pay it. They provide some limited protection by ensuring that anyone who qualified for income support in their own right during the period when the debt accrued cannot now be pursued for that debt. I tried to give an example at Second Reading of a husband and non-working wife with children when the husband leaves her and his debts for the council tax behind him. She is jointly and severally liable for his debts during the period when she had no income of her own and would have to repay those debts out of income support when she is on the poverty line; that would push her well below it.
Under the poll tax the DoE Practice Note 16 is fairly generous in its interpretation. Para. 2.2 states that:
"In theory joint and several liability would also apply if either the husband or the wife were exempt. It seems in practice unlikely that charging authorities would wish to use the powers in those circumstances".
The note goes on to suggest that in particular where the defaulting husband—presumably it would normally be a defaulting husband—had resources but failed to pay, the wife would not normally be expected to cover that debt.
Ministerial responses in Standing Committee in another place suggest that there need be no problem because the local authority could offer a backdated rebate in respect of the liability to the jointly and severally liable person in their own right. Unfortunately, the legislation on rebates gives considerable discretion to the local authority. It cannot be guaranteed that people will so qualify because, whereas a rebate claimed at the time that it is incurred attracts 95 per cent., subsidy from the DoE, a backdated rebate claims back only 20 per cent. subsidy back from the DoE. There can therefore be no necessary confidence that the local authorities will be as generous in their backdating of rebate as should otherwise be the case.
The amendments do not preclude claims for rebate but offer protection to those individuals who may be refused it or who cannot get a rebate to cover the
1032
whole period. This point interlocks with certain of the social security issues and I hope that we can receive a supportive response from the Minister opposite. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I have already stressed that we see the joint and several liability as being the central principle of the council tax. I went on to say that the way in which household residents divide that bill between them is not something in which the Government or legislation ought to interfere. However, if the council tax bill is not paid, the local authority must have power to act and be able to recover the amounts due without becoming involved in the internal arrangements of the household. It should therefore be able to send the bill or summons to anyone who is liable to pay the bill. It should not be required to consider the circumstances of each individual. One resident's personal income might be below the income support level but if he is supported by other residents, there may be more than adequate resources to meet the bill.
The noble Baroness mentioned a case of a wife deserted by her husband who has also left certain arrears on the bill. From the moment that he leaves, all is well. She is able to obtain benefit that will cover her bill. With his departure —presuming that the family is a husband, wife and children who are not yet adult—there will be a reduction and benefit will cover that. He will remain jointly and severally liable for the council tax for the period up to the day on which he left. Daily liability ties down precisely the period for which he remains liable. We discussed daily liability earlier this week. The person who remains will also be jointly and severally liable for the period up to that time and for the period after that that she remains in the property. We agree that there is no problem for her after that day.
It is up to the local authority to decide from whom to recover the unpaid debts—from which partner. Clearly, it would be more sensible for them to recover the sum from the person with the greatest resources or the one who is in fulltime employment—for example, the ex-husband if he has a job or has significant financial resources. As I said, if the remaining partner is left with low income and few resources she will be able to claim council tax benefit; but benefits will not help her discharge debts for the period before the separation occurred. That position must remain. It must be for the local authority to decide who to pursue in this case. One would have thought that if the wife obviously had no resources it would pursue the absconding husband.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the assumption that the absconding husband has moved to a different part of the country, and that the local authority is unable to recover that money, what is the Minister's advice?
Lord Henley: That must be a matter for the local authority. It cannot be for the benefits system to pay back the debts that have already been built up before the separation. That would create far worse anomalies with the encouragement to build up debts and then to abscond, leaving the benefits system to pick up the

1033
debts. At the time that those debts were built up they would not have been eligible to be covered by the benefits system. Before said husband's departure there was no entitlement to benefit because the husband had a considerable income. He has now gone. It must be for the local authority to pursue the debts from him. He would be the obvious person if he still has adequate resources to pay them. It cannot be for the benefits system to pick up the tab for those debts incurred before his departure. That would create a perverse incentive to build up debts and then to pass them on to the benefits system.
I hope that the noble Baroness accepts my argument. Obviously people who choose to share a dwelling share many responsibilities, and it is reasonable that they should share that responsibility. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. We clearly understand the nature of the problem. Like the noble Lord, I would not wish to give a perverse incentive to people to abscond and to slough off debts knowing that no one would pay them. I entirely accept that point. However, the problem remains. Which situation is the lesser of two evils? It is obviously desirable that the local authority should recover the debt from an absconding husband with a higher income. However, on the assumption that it cannot, the wife is then liable for the repayment of those debts out of her income support levels. With possible top slicing, such repayment may push her well below the poverty line and could involve her income support levels being reduced to half of what is regarded as the minimum subsistence level. What advice does the Minister give when the local authority in good faith has tried but failed to recover the debt from the absconding husband?
I press the matter because under the poll tax the DoE guidance in Circular 16 made clear that in those circumstances the local authority would be encouraged not to press the wife for recovery. But in that case the local authority must expect some proportional compensation from the DoE through a backdated rebate scheme of recovery of sums paid out.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may consider the matter. Obviously it would be available for deductions to be made from income support as with other bills. I do not at present know where those deductions will come in the hierarchy of bills. However, I do not accept that payment would push the individual claimant below what the noble Baroness calls the poverty line; I do not accept that there is such a thing. There are safeguards in the income support system which prevent deduction of more than a certain level from income support. The noble Baroness knows that perfectly well. There is only a set limit that can be deducted from income support.
I shall consider the matter further and write to the noble Baroness about our intentions as to where those issues should come within the hierarchy of deductions from income support or from benefit. However, the
1034
wife would remain jointly and severally liable for that bill as would the husband, wherever he had absconded to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Having listened to the debate I believe that the noble Baroness has made a case. The question that occurs to me is this: is it not open to the department to issue guidance of the type that existed for the purposes of the community charge? While totally accepting the view that in the circumstances described there should not be an inducement to people to pass on the bill to the Social Security, some people will be left with only the minimum income and a substantial debt which is owed by somebody else. There must be some guidance to indicate the circumstances in which it would not be sensible to recover that debt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord's suggestion is sensible provided that the guidance is that to which the local authority shall have regard rather than guidance which they would have to observe or contravene.
Lord Henley: I take the point made by my noble friend and shall consider whether guidance might be given on how these matters should be proceeded with. I am grateful that my noble friend and I believe the noble Baroness recognise that there is a considerable danger of creating what I referred to as a perverse incentive.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The discussion has been most helpful and I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. My fear is that if local authorities cannot track down the errant husband they will simply send in the bailiffs and the wife will lose her property. I am happy to respond to the Minister's offer to look at the matter again and I take pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to any person who on any day is a person to be disregarded under paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 of Schedule 1; or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. No doubt to the relief of Members opposite this may be the last discussion for the time being on joint and several liability. The effect of the amendments is to exempt in a straightforward way from joint and several liability four categories of people. First, prisoners and others in custody who are covered by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. Secondly, people who are severely mentally impaired as covered by paragraph 2. By normal reference one tends to refer to Alzheimer's cases. Thirdly, people over the age of 18 but still at school who are covered by paragraph 3, because child benefit is still being paid. Fourthly, full-time students covered by paragraph 4.
Perhaps I may indicate briefly why all those cases raise real problems within the structure of the council

1035
tax. First, the prisoner is in jail and obviously not at home. He is not liable for his personal element and therefore the wife in the marital home—I make that assumption for this purpose—is paying 75 per cent. of the council tax. Let us suppose that he does a flit leaving accrued debts behind. He is in jail, in destitution and in ignorance and finds himself liable for her bills while he is exempt from his own. That cannot be sensible and I should welcome the Minister's comments.
1 find Alzheimer's disease especially cruel. I wrote to the Minister about the matter and I have his reply which I may need to refer to later. Joint and several liability applied only between spouses under the poll tax and not under guidance where one party could but did not pay. We now find that joint and several liability applies to less intimate relationships than that of spouses; for instance, brothers and sisters. Unlike the poll tax, the council tax gives the Alzheimer victim joint and several liability for the personal element of the other person even though he may not be and is not liable for his own. Would the Minister tell me why someone with Alzheimer's disease is given a personal exemption of 25 per cent. from the poll tax on the ground of being mentally incompetent but is then held jointly and severally liable for the other 75 per cent. of the bill? Someone who is incompetent to pay his own debt is held to be jointly and severally liable for someone else's debt.
That cannot be sensible. It was not the case under the poll tax but it will be the case under the council tax. A person judged not competent to pay his own debt is held to be competent to pay someone else's. I hope that the disability groups recognise that the provisions for joint and several liability under the council tax are far more harsh and severe than they were under the poll tax. Concessions wrung from the Government in relation to the poll tax, which we were pleased to acknowledge, are being partly dismantled under the council tax.
My third example is the 18 year-old. A relative, a kindly uncle, leaves a home jointly to a mother and daughter and the 18 year-old daughter is still at school, mother receiving child benefit for her. If the mother defaults on the council tax bill, the child, who is still at school and with no income at all of her own, is jointly and severally liable for it. How can this be sensible? Again it is perverse.
Finally, I come to the full-time student. Similarly we can consider a student sharing a house with a friend who is not a student. They are not cohabitees; they are just friends. They are joint tenants, and because both are in the house the house itself is not exempt. It is instead treated as a single-person household. The student is properly exempt from liability for his own 25 per cent. of the bill and is invisible, to repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. But that student, though invisible for his own bill, remains jointly and severally liable for 75 per cent. of the bill not only for the property element, which if he lived with another student would not exist, but for the personal element—and this is the case with all of these —of the non-student. Even though the student may be on a grant which is below income
1036
support level, and by far, and the defaulter on a substantially higher income, the student remains liable.
While there may be a case for somebody who is exempt from the personal element of 25 per cent. having some liability for the property element, the council tax goes further than that. They are jointly and severally liable for the other person's personal element, albeit exempted from their own. This has to change. It is not only unfair; it is deeply illogical within the conceptual structure of this tax itself. It is offensive, and I have to say so far as the Alzheimer's case is concerned it is downright cruel. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I briefly support the amendment. The noble Baroness has explained the position clearly. I share her concerns and hope that they can be resolved.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness gave a number of different examples. As she said, this was something on which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has written to the noble Baroness. I hope that she found that letter of some use in setting out the problems in this area. Let me start with one of her examples, and that is the case of the person who is severely mentally impaired or has, as she put it, Alzheimer's. Disapplying joint and several liability in such cases could give rise to some serious difficulties, and not least for the people who would be affected.
Let us take the example given by the noble Baroness of, for example, a married couple where the husband has developed Alzheimer's but all the assets, including the house, were in the husband's name, and he, before developing Alzheimer's, will have been meeting all of the household bills. But despite his illness and his impairment he is still the partner who has the resources to continue to meet the bills. It would be hardly fair to transfer the sole liability to his wife. In practice of course the wife may have responsibility for administering his financial affairs. In that case she will be able to make the council tax payment from his financial resources.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Could the Minister then tell me, given that reasoning, why the person with Alzheimer's should have any discount or invisibility at all if he has resources?
Lord Henley: Because he is disabled. We have therefore offered that concession. Is the noble Baroness arguing that she would not like to have that discount?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, I am probing to see what the logic is to exempt somebody who is ill but to continue to make them responsible for someone else's debts?
Lord Henley: It is a mere discount. It is not an exemption. May I continue with the example of the husband suffering from Alzheimer's? In that case, if the wife has responsibility for managing his affairs, she can and will be able to make the council payment. But it may well be that someone else has this responsibility. It depends on how they have managed their affairs since his illness. For example, it might be

1037
one of his relatives other than his wife. In that case, making the wife solely liable for the tax would be perverse and possibly harsh in its effect. As I stressed on previous amendments, benefits will continue to be available for up to 100 per cent. for those on low incomes, including couples on low incomes.
As I have been trying to point out throughout the debates on all the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, joint and several liability is a difficult area and creates problems. It has given rise to careful consideration within the Government. Having considered the arguments carefully and sympathetically we believe that the position at which we have arrived is both logical and sensitive to the people's circumstances.
In the light of the example I gave I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. However, if she would prefer to have further explanation following the letter from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I shall be more than delighted to write or my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I am sure, will be delighted to write yet again.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand what the Minister is saying; what I cannot do is accept it. The Minister mentioned the Alzheimer's case and quoted at some length the letter kindly written to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, saying that the position was sensitive and logical. He referred primarily to the Alzheimer's case because there is a Civil Service draft in existence in that regard.
The situation is not logical and it is not sensitive. It is not logical to give a person a personal discount of 25 per cent. on the grounds that they are so severely mentally impaired that they are not competent, and yet continue to make them jointly and severally liable for another person's debts. That cannot be right. It is certainly not logical and it is certainly not sensitive.
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I believe that she is misunderstanding the nature of the personal element. One should not look at the personal element in the council tax as being what the noble Baroness would like to call the poll tax. The standard bill assumes that there are two adult residents. That standard bill will not be increased if there are more than two adult residents. However, as the noble Baroness says, it will be reduced if there are fewer than two or if one of those residents is discounted. It is not increased if there are more than two.
The Bill is designed to help single-person households and those containing certain groups; for instance, the person suffering from Alzheimer's disease and hence the discount. It does not represent a part of the tax which attaches to any specific individual. There may be three people in the house. That does not increase the council tax chargeable on that house.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is true. Nonetheless, Mr. Portillo in another place, throughout the Committee stage, was at pains to establish —it was reconfirmed in the debates that have already
1038
taken place in this Chamber—that it is a property poll tax Bill, or a property personal Bill, if the Minister wishes me to use the vocabulary employed by the noble Lords opposite.
Lord Henley: It is only the noble Baroness who calls it a property poll tax Bill. We call it a council tax Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in moving the Bill at Second Reading referred to it as a tax with two elements—a property and a personal. The personal element was based on a two-person household and the rest of the structure of the Bill—including, for example, the discount on second homes, including the comments made by Mr. Portillo in another place, including the 25 per cent. discount for one person-all show that the property element is regarded as amounting to around 50 per cent. of the bill and the personal element is two times 25 per cent. of the bill.
That is why, if somebody is invisible and therefore a two-person household becomes a single-person household—for example, if one resident is a student —the bill goes down by 25 per cent. There can surely be no disagreement between us on that. In which case, somebody suffering from Alzheimer's disease, somebody who is in prison or where there is an 18 year-old still at school and the like, the household bill will accordingly be reduced by 25 per cent. For their own invisibility they have a personal discount. Nonetheless, while recognising that they are invisible for the purposes of the Bill, they continue to be jointly and severally liable not just for the property element which they share, but for the other person's personal element. That is the structural problem of the tax. I see Ministers opposite shaking their heads.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I can only follow the noble Baroness so far. There may be some point in what she is saying, but the element of discount clearly does not prevent somebody from being in a position financially to pay if they are of great wealth. That is what I found so effective in the points that the Minister was making. If we imagine that there are cases where persons with disabilities, whether Alzheimer's disease or something else, are persons of great wealth, then it is naturally appropriate that from those resources they should meet the bill. The fact that they are liable to discount through disability is not relevant. Quite clearly, it makes sense to have a blanket discount eligibility through grounds of ill health. It would be absurd to inquire whether a person is wealthy before offering a discount. It is much simpler to ask whether the person is in a category which falls to be disregarded. If that is so, then that person is eligible for discount. It is an interesting but completely separate issue.
I believe that the noble Baroness may have a point of interest; but if the person involved is not wealthy, that would be another matter. The discount is one thing and the personal resource is another. Surely that is an element that the noble Baroness should bear in mind. She is flogging the one horse, whereas it may be that the other horse will go further.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My noble friend could hardly have put it better. It is not an invisibility which affects the mature student or a person with Alzheimer's disease; it is the question of the discount. The only occasion when one has invisibility is when one has a household of students. There is no invisibility in the case of the person I have mentioned—that is to say, someone with Alzheimer's disease, but there is a discount on that household's liability.
Lord Monkswell: Can the Government help me in understanding this matter? There seems to be a conflict in logic. We are advised by the Government that if a person such as a child, a student, someone in prison, or a person suffering mental incapacity is affected, then there is a discount of 25 per cent. if there are two persons in the household. That is entirely logical in the sense that all four categories of people will either have no income or they will be poor. Rather than go through the benefit system to assess their income and become involved with the red tape of bureaucracy, it makes laudable and logical sense to say, "Yes, we shall knock 25 per cent. off".
However, I am confused because the argument put forward by my noble friend means that the issue is being turned on its head. The Government argue that these people will be rich and therefore they can afford the cost. Can the Government explain this apparently logical inconsistency?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened to the argument with a growing sense of puzzlement. I say with no sense of criticism whatever of either the noble Baroness or my noble friend, but there seems to be some difficulty in making the arguments meet head-on. I get the impression that people on either side of the Committee are seeing somewhat different aspects of the argument. I wonder whether we shall be able to resolve this matter tonight.
I have been sufficiently persuaded by the speech of the noble Baroness and by that of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, to accept that there is a point here. I have yet to be convinced that my noble friend has wholly answered it. I wonder whether the right answer at this hour of the night is for my noble friend to take the matter away. We can all read Hansard and make sure that we have understood the arguments. Somewhere along the line there is a matter here which has not yet been thoroughly thought through. It is better that it should be resolved after careful thought given at leisure rather than to seek to argue it out and reach a Division tonight so that the matter cannot be returned to at Report stage.
Lord Henley: It is entirely for the noble Baroness to say what she wishes to do about her amendment. I cannot offer, as my noble friend has suggested, to take the matter away and have further thoughts about it. I can certainly write again to the noble Baroness. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Monkswell have misunderstood the point that I have been trying to make. In addition to that, I also suspect that there might be a fundamental disagreement between us. If that is so, then we must
1040
continue to differ. If the noble Baroness wishes to bring back the amendment at Report stage, I can do nothing to prevent her. I hope that by now she understands the point that we are trying to make.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do actually understand what the Minister said; that is the problem. But given the comments also being made from his side of the Chamber, in a constructive spirit I would hope that perhaps we could meet to discuss this rather than continue to exchange letters—which then get read into Hansard—to see whether we can find a way forward. In the light of that, and in the hope that we can arrange a meeting to discuss the matter, I take pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) A person who would otherwise be held jointly and severally liable under either subsection (3) above or under section 9 (liability of spouses) and who is a person who falls to be disregarded for the purpose of discounts under Schedule 1 shall only be liable for a maximum of 50 per cent of the daily liability for any period to which subsection (3) above or section 9 applies.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a much more modest and a much briefer amendment. It is weaker than the other two, which would exempt certain people from joint and several liability. This amendment seeks to confine joint and several liability to 50 per cent. of the tax, which Ministers say is the property element for the most part—as reflected, for example, in the debate on second homes. As a result, where the wife has Alzheimer's disease and the bill is reduced by 25 per cent. because the husband is treated as a single person, she is not then liable for his personal element though they may continue to share the problem of joint and several liability for the property element. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am glad the noble Baroness herself has said that her arguments are somewhat weaker—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, I did not. Absolutely not. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sometimes complains that I put words into her mouth, but I think that none has been such a transgression of propriety as that which we have just heard from the Minister. What I said was that the amendment was weaker. However, I am sure the noble Lord will listen more carefully in future.
Lord Henley: I certainly accept the correction from the noble Baroness. I also accept that the amendment is somewhat weaker. I was about to say that the proposal to limit liability in these circumstances has very little indeed to commend it. The council tax is a single amount chargeable in respect of a dwelling. The amount may well be determined by the number and status of the people living in the dwelling, as we have already discussed, but it is a single integral amount. It is the amount in the tax which the local authority expect the dwelling to contribute. As I said earlier, how the residents themselves decide to choose to

1041
divide that contribution among themselves is a matter for them. Where all, or some, of the residents need help they may be entitled to benefit according to their circumstances. But at the end of the day all the residents, as we have said before, are equally responsible for ensuring that the due amount is paid.
The amendment could also give rise to certain anomalies. Where the person giving rise to the discount has all the resources this amendment would limit his or her liability to 50 per cent. That would mean that the liability for the other half of the council tax would fall on the other partner, who may well have no means to meet it. It is far better for households to make their own financial arrangements, as I said earlier, and to make their own arrangements without the authorities having to concern themselves with the status and resources of the residents. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The gap of misunderstanding is still there, is it not? In response the Minister said—if I quote his phrases accurately —that it is for the individuals concerned to make their own financial arrangements and to decide for themselves. I think I have paraphrased him accurately. The point remains: how can those with Alzheimer's disease rationally make their own financial arrangements and decide for themselves? How can those who are imprisoned and therefore absent from the home make financial arrangements and decide for themselves? They are not, in that sense, consenting partners to the financial arrangements that need to be made. That is at the core of this argument. That is why they were given a personal discount in the first place and that is why, with the same logic, they cannot be held responsible for someone else's debts.
We have probably pushed this point far enough tonight. As I said, we shall obviously need to discuss the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 66A:
Page 5, line 12, leave out from ("person") to end of line 13 and insert ("as regards whom the following conditions are fulfilled—

(a) he has a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling; and

(b) at least part of the dwelling or, as the case may be, of the part concerned is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest;").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 66A and 67A redefine "owner" for the purposes of the council tax.
Clause 6 provides for the owner of a dwelling to be liable to pay the council tax where there are no residents. The existing definition of owner in Clause 6(4) states that the owner would be the person entitled to possession of the dwelling or any part of it. This is the same definition as that used for non-domestic rating purposes, for which it works well. However, we believe that in certain circumstances the existing definition may not produce a satisfactory result for council tax purposes. This is because the person
1042
entitled to possession may not always be the owner as usually understood. Take, for example, the position of a person for whom temporary accommodation has been provided under a licence, as part of his or her job. Where the accommodation has not become that person's sole or main residence we believe that liability for the council tax should fall on someone who has a substantial proprietary interest in the dwelling. However, the individual for whom the accommodation is provided may be held to be entitled to possession of the dwelling; he or she would then be the liable person under the present clause. This situation may also occur with holiday lettings where liability might attach to the person who had taken the letting, rather than the person letting the property.
The amendments therefore revise the definition of owner. The new definition relates to a person's interest in the dwelling and covers both freeholders and long leaseholders. This is similar to the definition currently used for the standard community charge. It means that the person who has the freehold, or if there is a lease of any part of the dwelling, any person who has an immediate interest in the dwelling under a lease of six months or more, will be liable. Leases of under six months will not be taken into account.
Clause 8 contains a power to place liability on the owner of prescribed dwellings instead of the residents. There is also a power to prescribe who should be regarded as the owner in certain cases. The new definition of owner proposed by Amendments Nos. 66A and 67A may not, however, cover the person on whom it would be appropriate to place liability in all situations. Amendment No. 68B seeks to clarify the position with regard to the definition of owner. It extends the order-making power to provide for liability to be place on a prescribed person, in particular cases.
Dwellings occupied by ministers of religion are one such example. It is our intention that ministers of religion should not be liable to pay council tax on dwellings in which they reside in order to perform their duties. Liability instead will be placed on the Church, but the definition of owner will not, in all cases, cover the appropriate body. The provision also allows for flexibility should difficult cases arise in the future.
Amendments Nos. 76ZA and 80A to the Scottish Clauses 75 and 76 achieve similar effects in Scotland. We have, of course, already amended Clause 75 in another place in a manner which aligned Scottish policy more closely with that for England and Wales. The further change is required to maintain a consistent approach. The differences between the two sets of amendments reflect differences in existing law relating to land tenure in Scotland and England and Wales which require, in the context of the present Bill, different approaches to achieve a similar effect.
These amendments are necessary to ensure fairness and will assist in the administration of the council tax. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is still in his place because he is the one who commends the Bill as having the virtue of simplicity. If he still thinks, after that

1043
explanation, that the Bill is simple, all I can say is that he has a greater gift of reduction to simple elements than I would lay claim to.
Clause 6(2) provides what is intended to be an exhaustive list of persons who are liable to pay the council tax. The list is in a hierarchical order. What the Government are in effect doing in these amendments is taking the bottom category—category F of the list in hierarchical order—and saying, "We shall define it to mean what we like to make sure that no one is left out". That is a laudable intention in some ways but it certainly does not conform with the view of the Bill held by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I suppose we must recognise that the amendments are inevitable given the way the Government have structured the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert:
(""material interest" means a freehold interest or a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 68 and 68A not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Liability in prescribed cases]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 68B:
Page 6, line 17, leave out from ("may") to end of line 19 and insert ("provide that, in relation to any dwelling of that class, subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the owner of the dwelling there were substituted a reference to the person falling within such description as may be prescribed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert:
("(7) A person who is liable in respect of any chargeable dwelling under subsection (3) above shall have a duty separately to notify each resident of—

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

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

(8) At no time shall the total of the amounts, in respect of any chargeable dwelling, referred to in subsection (7) (a) above exceed the council tax due for that dwelling for that day or any other period.
(9) The amount each resident may be asked to pay shall be no more than the amount that would reasonably reflect the proportion of the dwelling occupied by that resident.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment now before the Committee has already been referred to in debate. I trust that its importance has not been overestimated. It is a modest and relatively non-controversial amendment, as I hope Members of the Committee will agree. The Bill provides that where there are houses with multiple occupation—although it does not actually use those words—and where it is appropriate, the local authority may determine that the owner is liable; in other words, it will push the owner up the hierarchy of Clause 6(2) so as to ensure that the tax is
1044
actually collected. If there is, for example, a floating population in bedsitting rooms, a residential hostel which falls within the scope of the council tax or if part of a dwelling is being used to house another member of the family, such as a granny flat, it is much easier for the local authority to collect from one person (the owner) rather than from all of the people who might otherwise be liable. The Bill quite properly covers that point.
However, safeguards are needed and it is to those that we want to draw attention. Noble Lords will recall that, when both the Scottish and the English poll tax Bills were being introduced, we on this side of the Chamber gave the warning that the fact that the poll tax was to be collected from an individual meant that where in the past there had been rents inclusive of the rates, landlords would not deduct the rating element from the rent and would therefore make windfall profits.
Estimates have been made of those windfall profits which arose from the fact that the Government refused to take heed of our warnings. I have with me some estimates. However, I do not know how the information was collected and therefore I would not put my professional judgment on them. Nevertheless, estimates which appear to have been widely accepted reveal that something like £40 million in windfall profits was made in Scotland and perhaps as much as £90 million in London.
It may be thought that that is a matter between landlord and tenant and not the concern of government. But of course many of those rents are being subsidised by housing benefit. If the rents are excessive because the rating element has not been taken off, then it is the public purse through the housing benefit scheme which is losing out because of such profiteering.
The amendment seeks to provide that the landlord, in this case, who is liable in respect of a chargeable dwelling, shall notify each resident of the amount that the resident shall pay in respect of council tax, and, under subsection (8), shall never charge more than the amount due for the council tax. In other words, there should not be, as there has been in the past with electricity meters, for example, a bumping up of the amount to be paid because of an excessive amount claimed to be due in council tax. So we say in subsection (9):
"The amount each resident may be asked to pay shall be no more than the amount that would reasonably reflect the proportion of the dwelling occupied by that resident".
The amendment is not a theoretical one. It is based on the experience of the bad drafting of the poll tax legislation. The amendment does not just affect other people, it affects the public purse. It is obviously a matter of simple justice that tenants should be protected in this way. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. I did not move Amendment No. 62 because I thought that it would be more useful to debate the proposed measure rather than the more general provisions of the earlier amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the responsibility lay with government, for financial

1045
reasons. It is also the responsibility of government, for the reason he mentioned at the end, where it is known that there was a form of exploitation—I do not believe that it is too strong a term—as there was with regard to the poll tax, to ensure that that is not replicated in the new tax.
Baroness Blatch: I am not surprised that the noble Baroness did not move Amendment No. 62, because it would have required an incredible amount of bureaucracy. Details of tenants' incomes would have been required in order to make a report to Parliament.
The amendment would provide an unwarranted interference in people's private affairs. It is up to individual owners or landlords to decide how they will reflect council tax in rent payments. Landlords do not have to account separately for other overheads such as gas, electricity, water or maintenance costs when determining rents. It is not therefore appropriate, nor would it be possible, to single out one element, because a landlord can say almost anything. He can say there is no element in the rent for tax, or there is, or it is small, or it is medium. It is not possible, without knowing all the elements involved in making up the rent. It may be the policy of Members opposite to have a system in place so that every landlord has to submit evidence with respect to each element of the rent to ascertain which part of it relates to the council tax.
There is no reason to believe that a landlord would be more or less fair and equitable when levying, as part of his overheads, the council tax as an overhead than a landlord would be when levying any other overhead: heating, lighting, gardening, possibly cooking, cleaning or whatever element is built in to make up the rent. How is it possible separately to identify the council tax? It is not possible.
Under the council tax, liability will normally fall on the residents of a dwelling, and the power to make the owner of a dwelling, or other prescribed person, liable for the council tax will be used mainly in the fairly rare cases where it would be difficult to bill the residents. Houses in multiple occupation, where the residents are likely to be occupying the dwelling under licence, and hostels are two such cases.
In contrast, rates were paid by the landlord in a greater number of cases, and, accordingly, a contribution for the rates was often included in the rent payable by tenants. The issue has therefore attracted a substantial amount of attention, but inclusive rents will not be so common under the council tax. They will be the exception rather than the rule. I ask that the amendment be rejected.
Lord Monkswell: I should like to question the noble Baroness about one point she made. If I heard her correctly, she said that a landlord could, in the rent that he charged for the property, include an element of the council tax or an amount in proportion to the council tax. I am concerned about this because surely the council tax is a tax on people for the benefit of the use of the property. It is a combination of a property tax and a personal tax, as has been mentioned.
Is the noble Baroness saying that it is legitimate for an intermediary party between the taxpayer and the
1046
Government to decide who shall and who shall not pay the tax? In practice it would mean that the landlord would have to levy an extra charge on some people and tax them more heavily, but allow other people not to pay the tax. That cannot be fair.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has totally misunderstood the point. There is a liable person who is responsible for paying the tax. Unless otherwise decided, it is deemed that there should be a property element, which is 50 per cent., and a personal element which is also 50 per cent. That is the liability for the liable person in the household. For the purpose of this amendment, we assume that that is the landlord. He will have a number of overheads which will include the council tax, heating, lighting and many other items. There will be a negotiated rent between the landlord and the tenant or tenants. The way in which the landlord negotiates a rent, containing all these different elements, is a matter between the landlord and the tenant or tenants. That is all there is to this.
It is not possible separately to identify items, or it would be easy for a landlord to evade the duty, if he had to submit evidence that he had levied a fair element, a fair proportion of the council tax. The choice of the landlord would be to pay the bill as it comes to him, without levying it at all, or to levy it among the tenant or tenants. That is all there is to it. It would be quite impossible and bureaucratic to insist that there had to be evidence that there was fair and equitable levying of that one overhead. It could only be deemed to be fair if there was evidence of all the other elements within the rent. That is not something we could support. However, no doubt Members of the Committee opposite would like to impose that on landlords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a most astonishing series of arguments. We are accused of wanting to know the details of all the elements in a rent. There is no need for that and it is not what the amendment says.
Baroness Blatch: How would the noble Lord identify specifically within a rent the element that is related to the council tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The residence, the property or whatever we care to call it will be subject to a council tax. The landlord will know how much he pays and how many tenants he has. It does not matter what rent he charges for other items—space, lighting, heating or anything else—he will be required to say, "Because in the past you have been paying your poll tax yourself, I am now going to put up your rent because I am going to pay your council tax for you". But if the council tax is, for example, £200 and there are four people, he will not be able to charge more than £50 a head, provided each has an equal share of the dwelling, the property. That seems to me entirely reasonable. It does not require anyone else to know anything about what other elements of rent there are. The landlord simply says, "I can't receive a council tax bill of £200, go along to my tenants and put their rents up by £400 in total and make a windfall of £200 profit". That is what happened when inclusive rents

1047
were replaced by poll tax liability when the poll tax was introduced. It happened in Scotland, England and Wales.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has got it quite wrong. That is not what happened at all; it was exactly the opposite. I would not attempt to deny that there were cases where a landlord failed to make a reduction because he was no longer paying rates when the tenant was paying the community charge. However, that is a totally different matter. In many cases tenants were able to make the necessary representations to their landlords as they recognised their landlords were no longer paying rates. Some landlords might have said they had not increased the rent for some time and therefore they wished to do so by the amount of the community charge. Often an agreement was reached between tenant and landlord and tenants stayed in their rented accommodation. In cases where rents are regulated or controlled, there is machinery to deal with these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to be obsessed with a person who is letting out property for the first time and who says to his tenants, "This is the rent and in addition I am charging you additional amounts for services I provide". The noble Lord believes it is possible to isolate that element in the rent that accounts for the council tax. It just does not work like that.
In the vast majority of cases where a tenant rents accommodation he will pay his council tax because that is what this Bill provides. However, we are discussing those cases where the landlord pays the tax. The landlord tells his tenant what the rent is. The tenant may ask about other expenses. The landlord tells him that X and Y are included but the tenant will have to pay for A, B and C himself. The landlord may say that X and Y that are included in the rent include the council tax. However, it is a matter for the landlord to decide how much of the total charged represents the council tax and how much of it is the rent. It is not a case of a landlord charging his tenant an additional amount simply to make more money. What he is doing in fact is charging a higher rent. I do not see how one can isolate the different elements of the rent. I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is barking up the wrong tree. I totally accept the arguments made by my noble friend. I hope this amendment will be rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I wished to be even more moderate than I usually am, I would say that that speech represents the triumph of hope over experience. Where inclusive rents should have been altered when the individually collected poll tax was introduced, some landlords profited from the situation. Anyone who has any experience of offering advice to tenants knows that that was the case. Landlords did not reduce their rents by the amount of the poll tax.
In the case of tenants who received housing benefit, the public purse stood the cost of that profiteering. The rents should have been reduced but were not and that offered an opportunity for profiteering to
1048
landlords. There is now a second opportunity for profiteering when it is recognised that rents will have to be increased to cover the new tax and the Government are refusing to make provision to protect tenants from an excessive increase in rent over and above that which is required in order to pay the council tax. Again, if those tenants are in receipt of housing benefit, the public purse will bear the loss.
It is scarcely credible that having got this matter wrong once, and having seen the effects of getting it wrong once, the Government should insist on getting it wrong again in exactly the same way. However, that is what they are doing. It is only the time of night that prevents me from seeking the opinion of the Committee on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Liability of spouses]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Different amounts for dwellings in different valuation bands]:
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 49, leave out line 13 and insert:
("Values not exceeding £20,000 AA
Values exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £27,000") A
The noble Baroness said: It is neat that as we approach the end of the day we return to the question of banding. It is a shame that the Scots have had to return to the Highlands and Islands.
Lord Strathclyde: On your side!
Baroness Hamwee: Nevertheless, the phantoms behind me support this amendment. It may be difficult for those of us sitting in central London to accept that a band up to £27,000 is unrealistically high for areas in the Highlands and Islands which are sparsely populated and where property has a low value as a result. That sum is too high as a starter band. It is another example of too many properties falling within the same band. In Caithness 39 per cent. of houses are in the first band; in Ross and Cromarty the figure is 32 per cent.; and it is 33 per cent. in Sutherland. In those districts only 3 per cent. of houses fall within the top three bands.
What we have here is not a true reflection of the cost of housing in remote rural areas. We run the danger once again of requiring Highland residents to pay more than the value of their houses suggests that they should. Many of them live in property which has a low value. They are particularly badly hit. That is particularly so in communities where property values are inflated because people pay high prices for holiday homes, causing the difficulties which we all know about for local communities.
I suggest that we should look again at the low banding for Scotland and insert the two new bands which are proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The amendment which the noble Baroness moved on behalf of her Scottish colleagues—and I thought that she led with her chin—allows me to raise a point which Members of the Committee will recall was raised during the passage of the Local Government Finance Bill which introduced the community charge. What is the liability in respect of occasionally occupied mountain huts and similar properties, many of which would be affected by the amendment which the noble Baroness moved? Such buildings, if they were to change hands, would come well at the bottom end even of her lower band.
In the case of the community charge the argument was put forward that if the building was not occupied for more than a few weeks in the year there was no question of liability for the community charge. I am not clear whether such properties which would fall within the lower band proposed by the noble Baroness would be liable for the council tax. Perhaps I should declare an interest as having an occasional occupation right of such a property, although I hasten to add that I am not the owner. I recall that there was no question of liability to community charge. Will there be liability to council tax?
The point is relevant. The noble Baroness indicated that in certain Highland areas a substantial proportion of properties would fall within the lower band if it were not amended and that therefore there should be an additional band. One wonders what proportion of those properties are the kind of temporarily occupied hostels and huts which do not come within the council tax because they are not occupied for more than a few weeks of the year.
Lord Strathclyde: It is amazing that at this time of the night we should be having yet another debate on banding. Is there anything left to say which will satisfy the noble Baroness, except that this time she has decided to hit Scotland rather than England and Wales?
The noble Baroness came up with a figure of £20,000. There is no evidence to suggest that £20,000 would be better than any other figure. Why not £17,000 or £25,000?
In addition, the noble Baroness has not considered the fact that if there were to be an additional lower band that would benefit the people who currently live in band A properties. Is that what the noble Baroness wants?
Turning to the question of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, if the mountain hut is somebody's sole or main residence it would come under the council tax. If it is unoccupied but belongs to somebody it would receive a 50 per cent. discount. If it is occupied only for very short periods I dare say that it would probably escape council tax altogether. I hope that that explains the matter and that the noble Baroness will decide to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The council tax is liable on a daily basis and not an annual basis. Is the Minister encouraging law-breaking?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber would know far more about that than I do.
Baroness Hamwee: I thought that the words "hit Scotland" were a bit much. Yes, it does hit Scotland. But it is not my amendment that hits Scotland; it is the Bill and the unfair banding. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not say that he hoped that the explanation would satisfy me. It does not do so. At this hour I shall not press the matter further. However, I am not satisfied and I do not believe that the people in the areas affected will be satisfied.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister would care to think again about the words he just used to me.
Lord Strathclyde: If I have an apology to make, it is for making the words personal. I shall broaden my comment to the Labour Party. Clearly in the past the Labour Party has supported law-breakers. In its ranks are Members of Parliament who have refused to pay the poll tax. If the noble Lord would care to deny that, I shall be most pleased to hear it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This exchange is becoming repetitious, but I have to deny it. There have been no such occasions. I assume that the noble Lord refers to the poll tax. The Labour Party has never encouraged any disobedience to the law. The Labour Party has never encouraged that. Individuals of all parties and none have encouraged disobedience but not the Labour Party.
Lord Strathclyde: Not the Conservative Party. It is quite clear that many Members of the Labour Party nationally have refused to pay the poll tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept the noble Lord's apology to me personally.
Baroness Hamwee: It is perhaps inevitable that as we start and end the day with the issue of banding so we have yet again the symmetry of that repeated allegation. I was asked whether I would not leave alone the question of banding. It is relevant to the Bill. Time after time we hear the same allegation. I hope that after hearing clearly quite heartfelt denial after denial, it might be accepted that there should now be an end of the matter. I do not take a party political point but the comments are quite extraordinary.
Baroness Blatch: Neither do I make a party point. However, there was a sensible grouping of all the amendments which covered topics. We have had several discussions about banding. There is almost nothing left to say about it. It is very unfortunate that we have been brought back only to repeat the arguments. The noble Baroness has heard absolutely all that we can have to say on banding. We are not going to concede the point.
The amendment could so well have been, as originally it was, grouped with the other amendments on banding. We have had a long day and are quite unnecessarily now discussing arguments that we had in the middle of the afternoon.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to intervene but my reading of the amendment makes it different from the other amendments on banding. One of the effects of the amendment is to take properties that are at the low end of the valuation list—small properties that are used only a few days a year—and remove them from the council tax regime altogether because there is no multiplier. I may have misunderstood the amendment but it seems to me to be significantly different from the other banding amendments. If I have misread the situation, I apologise to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: I certainly have no wish to keep people unnecessarily. It is late, but not very late. The interests of Scotland on this point are not the same as the interests of England which we debated earlier. I am sad to hear it suggested that because we know that the Government have set their face against banding we should accept that and not have even a short debate on the topic. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that we have taken Scotland so seriously that we have chosen to put a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench for the whole of the Bill. We have not seen that happening on the Labour or Liberal Benches.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 73:
Page 49, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert:

('£180,000

Values exceeding £180,000 but not exceeding £250,000

H

Values exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £400,000

I

Values exceeding £400,000 but not exceeding £500,000

J

Values exceeding £500,000

K")

The noble Baroness said: I am tempted to move the amendment although I wrote a note to myself about half an hour ago to the effect that I would not. Therefore, I shall not do so at this stage.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 76 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Persons liable to pay council tax]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 76ZA:
Page 50, line 16, leave out paragraph (f) and insert: ("(f) he is any of the following—

(i) the sub-tenant of the whole or any part of the dwelling under a sub-lease granted for a term of 6 months or more;

(ii) the tenant, under a lease granted for a term of 6 months or more, of any part of the dwelling which is not subject to a sub-lease granted for a term of 6 months or more;

(iii) the owner of any part of the dwelling which is not subject to a lease granted for a term of 6 months or more.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 76A not moved.]
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Liability in prescribed cases]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 78 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 80A:
Page 50, line 44, leave out from ("may") to end of line 46 and insert ("provide that, in relation to any dwelling of that class, subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the owner of the dwelling there were substituted a reference to the person falling within such description as may be prescribed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Earl Howe: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER: STATISTICS
  QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER: STATISTICS
  EMERGENCY HOSPITAL BEDS IN LONDON
  EMERGENCY HOSPITAL BEDS IN LONDON
  NHS SURGERY: PATIENT WAITING TIMES
  NHS SURGERY: PATIENT WAITING TIMES
  HOSPITAL SWITCHBOARDS: OPERATOR PERFORMANCE
  HOSPITAL SWITCHBOARDS: OPERATOR PERFORMANCE
  WOOL PRODUCERS
  WOOL PRODUCERS
  WOOL CLIP: GUARANTEE
  WOOL CLIP: GUARANTEE
  WOOL MARKET
  WOOL MARKET
  NATO: RUSSIA AND CIS
  NATO: RUSSIA AND CIS
  NATO ALLIES: ARMS SALES GUIDELINES
  NATO ALLIES: ARMS SALES GUIDELINES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION MINISTRIES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION MINISTRIES
  VISIT TO KAZAKHSTAN, UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
  VISIT TO KAZAKHSTAN, UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
  BARKESTONE SCHOOL FOUNDATION: TRUSTEES
  BARKESTONE SCHOOL FOUNDATION: TRUSTEES
  ROYAL PARKS: CONTRACTORS
  ROYAL PARKS: CONTRACTORS
  NATIONAL BODIES: PUBLIC COSTS
  NATIONAL BODIES: PUBLIC COSTS
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS SERVICES
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS SERVICES
  LYGO REPORT: COST
  LYGO REPORT: COST
  PRISONERS: TRANSFERS TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRISONERS: TRANSFERS TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRISONS: VIR
  PRISONS: VIR