Sitting of 28 January 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AVON WEIR BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
CROSSRAIL BILL

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  Ordered for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Education and Training
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education or training in (a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): There has been a dramatic improvement in staying-on rates since 1979. In 1989–90, 75 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes, compared to 46 per cent. in 1979–80. Corresponding figures for 17-year-olds were 58 and 29 per cent. respectively. If part-time provision is included, the figures rise to 86 per cent. of 16-year-olds in 1989–90.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that assessing ability only in terms of academic achievement sells young people short? Is not one reason for the remarkable increase in the number of young people in training—from 6,000 in 1979 to 260,000 today—the fact that we have returned to the common-sense recognition that vocational training is of considerable value and more closely reflects the abilities of many young people? Will my hon. Friend explain how national vocational qualifications help vocational training?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is terribly important that this country takes vocational training seriously. We need to motivate young people, whatever their aptitude or ability, to acquire further qualifications if we are to have a competitive and well-motivated work force in the 1990s and the next century. National vocational qualifications are a critical element in motivating youngsters and ensuring that their achievements are recognised rapidly.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister considered whether it would make more sense if young men and women from working-class families who leave school at 16 or 17 and are thrown into slave labour schemes where they earn a little over £20 a week, but who want to stay on at school, could stay on and be paid a sum equivalent to what they would get on training schemes? As a result, they would be better educated and would not be thrown on the scrap heap.
    Mr. Eggar: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would apologise to the House for the last Labour Government's appalling record. In 1979, only 46 per cent. of youngsters stayed on in full-time educational training. That figure has now risen to some 86 per cent., which shows the Government's achievement. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the welcome improvement in staying-on rates may be related to the quality of education in schools? Is not it significant that the 10 authorities with the worst staying-on rates are all Labour controlled and that many of them also figure among the 20 authorities whose students have the worst GCSE results?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is extraordinary that the Labour party consistently complains about resources and other matters yet is not prepared to point the finger where is should be pointed —at the performance of Labour-controlled local education authorities, as evidenced in staying-on rates and examination results. The Labour party should worry more about the quality of education offered by the education authorities that it controls, rather than going through its political rhetoric.

    School Buildings
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to enable local education authorities to improve the fabric of school buildings.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We have provided £1.8 billion worth of annual capital guidelines and capital allocations to local education authorities and governors of voluntary-aided schools since 1990–91. It is for them to ensure that those substantial resources are used effectively.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that that sum will in no way meet the amount needed for the enormous backlog of repairs to schools in England, Wales and Scotland? Is he aware that in St. Helens, of the two bids submitted, £1 million was requested to meet health and safety requirements and £1 million was requested for essential repairs? The authority was allocated £587,000. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge, therefore, that a number of schools have not yet been made safe for pupils? Is not that disgraceful?
    Mr. Fallon: I increased the allocation to St. Helens for improvement work from £311,000 last year to £556,000 this year. St. Helens' overall allocation was low because it did not bid for new places and put any proposals to tackle

    797
    its serious surplus place problem. Some 6,900 surplus places exist there. That includes more than one quarter of secondary school desks, which are empty.
    Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when the Education (Schools) Bill becomes law, local education authorities will still have an absolute right to inspect the schools that they maintain, whenever they want to, so that they are always aware of the maintenance that needs to be done?
    Mr. Fallon: Not to inspect schools, no, but LEAs will retain reserve powers to ensure that the budget delegated is managed appropriately. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, if an authority believes that a budget is mismanaged it has the ultimate power to withdraw it.
    Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some relationship between surplus school buildings and the fabric of schools is nonsense. There are many surplus buildings in Liverpool, but that does not affect the way in which the local authority can carry out necessary improvements, particularly to inner-city schools.
    Mr. Fallon: I was simply making the point that there is a cost in keeping a school desk empty—in St. Helens it amounts to about £1.5 million every year. It is perfectly open to LEAs to obtain higher capital allocations from my Department by putting forward sensible proposals to rationalise their school provision.

    Standardised Testing
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of standardised testing in schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Testing is the key to raising standards in our schools by providing clear information about pupils' progress. Effective annual tests of seven-year-olds are already in place. Tests of 11, 14 and 16-year-olds will follow in the next three years.
    Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that last year's testing of seven-year olds showed that our schools need less play and more learning, less discovery and more teaching, less mixed ability and more setting, less child-centred education and more whole-class subject teaching? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to raise standards in our schools is to provide more testing and to make the results of those tests publicly available—both of which the Labour party opposes?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, I certainly accept that. The results show an unacceptably wide difference between the performance of the very best and that of the very worst. They show that those tests have nothing to do with the amount spent per pupil in individual authority areas—some of the biggest spenders were right down at the bottom. They also show that results do not necessarily have anything to do with socio-economic circumstances or anything of that kind. I share my hon. Friend's belief that the answer lies in the sort of suggestions that he made and which have been revealed in the report of the three wise men.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State understand that the testing of seven-year-olds does not quite mean that? He needs to be more careful. An academic year has three terms and children enter school at various stages in that year. Many of the children who are tested are only six. The results over two to three years will include those for children who missed out two terms and who were tested before the age of seven—they will account for a large percentage of the results. The Secretary of State has got it completely wrong. Daily assessment has gone on for all these years, with tests occasionally being undertaken—that is a reality. If testing is to be done, it should be done properly. The test for seven-year olds should not include children who have not yet reached that age.
    Mr. Clarke: First, the good news. I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] I meant the hon. Gentleman, but he almost became my hon. Friend because of his grudging acceptance of the principle of testing. It is certainly true, as he says, that tests for seven-year-olds are a shorthand way of describing the progress of those at a particular stage. Some of them have spent more terms in schools than others— which must be borne in mind when looking at the position of an individual pupil—but all those factors even out in the local authorities. For example, the performance of the hon. Gentleman's authority, Sheffield, was markedly inferior to that of Rotherham, although the discrepancies of the sort that he described do not exist in those two authorities.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Do not we owe it to all our children, right across the country and irrespective of their primary schools, to identify their needs, strengths and weaknesses at an early age? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Labour party is a party of slow learners? Not only has the Labour party not realised that GCSE results at 16 in Labour-controlled authorities are some of the worst, but it has learnt nothing—it still opposes standardised testing from the age of seven.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is essential to get the basics of primary education right, because until a child has mastered them it has no possibility of gaining access to the rest of education. I agree also that it is absurd to suggest that there is anything wrong with national testing of pupils' progress at certain ages, both to inform parents and to inform localities about the performance of their schools. It is extraordinary that that has been resisted even before we have received the first results.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most damning conclusions of the report on primary education which he published last week was the evidence that standards of reading among seven-year-olds have slumped since 1988, over precisely the period when Ministers have produced one change after another in the system of standardised testing for seven-year-olds? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman ashamed of that record —of the fact that the reading standards of seven-year-olds have slumped by up to five months? Is he ashamed of the fact that every month he has been in office reading standards of seven-year-olds have fallen? Why is it that the Government promised higher standards of education in 1979, 1983 and 1987 but the results of 13 years in office have been lower standards of education?
    Mr. Clarke: I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who until recently persistently argued

    799
    that standards in our schools were not falling and that he resisted pressure for changes in teaching methods and other ideas designed to correct the fall. He merely strengthens the conclusions of the three wise men, who think that there may have been some recent decline but who certainly did not atribute it to the national curriculum, as the hon. Gentleman did. They reject that argument.
    The hon. Gentleman has no evidence for asserting that standards have dropped month by month. If he is beginning to share the public anxiety about standards in our schools, he should be ashamed of himself for having resisted each and every reform that has been aimed at reversing the trend and improving them.

    University Education
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the population attended university education in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in 1990–91.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Separate age-participation indices for universities only are not calculated, nor are separate indices for England and Wales; but taking higher education as a whole, provisional data for the 1990–91 academic year show that 19.3 per cent. of young people entered higher education in Great Britain compared with 26.5 per cent. in Scotland.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman might do well to remember that Great Britain includes Scotland. I think that he meant England and Wales for one part and Scotland for the other.
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the higher participation rate in Scotland and the importance of the four-year degree there, it would be right to allocate proportionately more resources to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council? If he does agree, how much more does he propose to allocate?
    Mr. Howarth: The division of Universities Funding Council funding will be decided in due course in consultation with all the Departments concerned, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, always a powerful advocate for Scottish interests, has said that Scotland will receive a fair share of those resources.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that our achievements in that aspect of education could not be better illustrated than by that which pertains in Nottinghamshire, where the university now has the highest ratio of applications to available places and where Nottingham polytechnic, which is soon to be a university, is planning to increase its capacity over the next couple of years to 16,000 student places? Is not that real success in higher education?
    Mr. Howarth: As a Nottingham Member, my hon. Friend is justly proud of the higher education opportunities for his constituents in their own home city where we have a fine polytechnic and a magnificent university. I readily join him in paying tribute to the remarkable achievements of the academic and other staff in those institutions of higher education in terms of the wonderful opportunities that they are offering to more and more of our young people and to people of all ages.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Scottish universities now take many students from the Republic of Ireland and Scotland has to pay the full tuition fees for all those students. Given that the Republic of Ireland does not pay the tuition fees of the few Scottish students in the Republic, is that additional burden on Scottish universities taken into account and are larger grants made available to those universities on that basis?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is alluding to the arrangements for the support of students in higher education that apply within the European Community. All relevant factors are taken into account by the funding councils when they decide how to allocate resources.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Eggar: I am delighted to say that, to date, 315 schools have opted for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is not it a fact that the Labour party would throw out of the window all the grant-maintained schools and return them to the control of its friends in the town halls? Is not it also a fact that pupils in the worst authorities, run by Labour, have the worst GCSE English and maths results? That is what would happen to education if that lot ever gained control.
    Mr. Eggar: The Labour party is dedicated to lowering standards. One of its latest pledges is to destroy our A-level system. My hon. Friend is right that the Labour party would be prepared to overrule parental ballots and to take grant-maintained schools back into the throes of LEA control, which is exactly what parents have voted to escape.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister has just appointed two of his own governors to Stratford school in my constituency. Given the national publicity surrounding that school and the instability and chaos there, what procedure exists for schools that lose or have removed from them their grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Eggar: It would be wise if the hon. Gentleman actually looked at the record of Stratford school. When Newham had finished trying to destroy that school, it had about 300 pupils, but there are now almost double that number. When Newham's custody of that school ceased, the standards of education were appallingly low, but Her Majesty's inspectors now report a significant improvement in educational standards there—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Answer the question.
    Mr. Eggar: Those are the real facts about Stratford, not the black propaganda that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put around.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal attraction of grant-maintained schools is not the additional funding that they receive but the greater independence from the LEAs that they then enjoy? Does he further agree that, following the re-election of the

    801
    Conservative party to office after the next general election, there will be an avalanche of applications from state schools seeking grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he has first-hand experience of the benefits of GM schools, as the school that used to be known as Wold Newton transferred to grant-maintained status a few months ago and is showing the way and what can be achieved as a result of a move to grant-maintained status.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minster confirm that if the bribes that the Secretary of State reinforced in terms of capital allocations for grant-maintained schools last week were extended to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other pledge to extend that to every possible school, the cost would be the equivalent of more than one penny on VAT?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady is somewhat confused. I have not heard even the chief Opposition Treasury spokeman talk in terms of putting one penny on VAT. Perhaps the hon. Lady should go for a tutorial with him to understand how VAT is collected. As to her other point, I can say only what I said to her about her calculations on nursery school resources. She is not even at level 1 in maths, and should get some help.

    Torrells School, Grays
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to make a decision on the application for grant-maintained status from Torrells comprehensive school, Grays, Essex.
    Mr. Eggar: Not later than the end of February.
    Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that my constituents, particularly those who are parents at this school, will be pleased to hear that he will make a fast decision. He will be aware that the parents at the school voted by a ratio of nearly 3:1 for grant-maintained status. I am sure that he will wish to join me in congratulating the governors, the headmaster and the parents involved in the school on their wisdom in applying for grant-maintained status so as to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of the local education authority. Will he ensure that the decision that he makes is a positive one?
    Mr. Eggar: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I stand by what I said—I shall do my utmost to get a decision by the end of February. I welcome the commitment that has been shown by the head of the governing body, but I cannot give any hint of the decision that I will be taking by the end of February.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister have a care with Torrells school in view of the mistake that he made with Stratford school? Is he aware that Father Reilley, the chairman of the governors, has already been disposed of, that the new chairman had a brawl with the head teacher, to which the police had to be called, that the chairman has purported to sack the head teacher and that the Department has intervened and had correspondence and has appointed new governors? Do we have—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Torrells school.
    Mr. Leighton: Do we have local management of this school or is it run by the Department?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman probably needs a geography lesson. Stratford school is not in Essex, as he should know. With regard to what he said about Stratford school, if he had taken rather more interest in the school when it was in the control of Newham and insisted on the school keeping up to reasonable standards and if he now put pressure on Newham LEA to ensure that it raised standards in schools, he would be doing more for his constituents than he is by his performance today.

    City Technololgy Colleges
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current number of established city technology colleges.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Thirteen city technology colleges are already established, and two more will be open by autumn next year. The extension of CTC principles and practice into the rest of state education is also under way. I announced on 15 January the establishment, with the joint support of British Aerospace, of Hutton grammar school in Lancashire as the first voluntary-aided technology school. We are receiving many worthwhile bids from schools wishing to become technology schools in response to the announcement we made of the availability of capital funds for this purpose.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it the truth that CTCs have emerged only as a result of the lavish use of taxpayers' money to prop them up? Will the Secretary of State accept that in Bradford, the capital expenditure on one CTC is roughly the equivalent of the whole of the capital expenditure for one year awarded by the Government, but Bradford public schools are in dire need of expenditure? Is not it true that the Government's attitude towards CTCs is private affluence and, towards the rest of the education system, public squalor?
    Mr. Clarke: The Mickey Mouse figures on CTC expenditure that critics in Bradford tend to use compare capital expenditure on schools starting from scratch with that for existing schools that do not have to be built. The funding of CTCs is on a par with that of other local education authority schools, and their recurrent funding will not be different from that of other schools in their areas. CTCs offer education opportunities to children of all abilities—particularly those drawn from the most deprived parts of the cities that they serve. It is unbelievably churlish if, for ideological reasons, the hon. Gentleman remains hostile to the best innovation in Bradford for years, while defending a local authority that had the worst results in the country in the recent tests for seven-year-olds.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the establishment of city technology colleges—not least among them, Brooke CTC in Corby —provides a model for the future normal state schooling system? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that the spread of city technology colleges is accelerated as quickly as possible? I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's school technology initiative, and hope that he will favour Our Lady and Pope John school in Corby for funding under that scheme.
    Mr. Clarke: I am closely following the progress of Brooke CTC, the site of which I visited only recently. I know how popular and successful it has become. I agree with my hon. Friend that the next important consequence to flow from the CTC programme is that the benefits of all the curriculum development work undertaken by CTCs will spread to the rest of the education system. The technology initiative is an important element in that.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Whatever the difference of view held across the House, given that CTCs are funded by public money, will the Secretary of State take urgent steps to give parents whose children are refused admission to them the same right of appeal that is available in respect of all other publicly-funded schools?
    Mr. Clarke: I view CTCs as exemplifying the principle of parental choice that operates in many other parts of the education system. I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, because it is our aim to put CTC's on a level with others in regard to funding and other aspects. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such a point, rather than displaying the ridiculous opposition that we have seen from Labour, which still seems pledged to getting rid of some of the finest schools in the state education system.

    State Schools, West Norfolk
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received in connection with state schools in west Norfolk.
    Mr. Fallon: We have received representations about capital funding for several schools in west Norfolk. Earlier this month, I saw a deputation that opposed Norfolk education authority's proposals to close Bradenham voluntary controlled primary school, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard).
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend the Minister pay tribute to the professionalism of Norfolk teachers and in particular to those who work in small, rural primary schools? He will he aware of the important role that such schools play in local communities. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the Labour group on Norfolk county council, he believes in small primary schools? Will he confirm that, provided they can deliver the national curriculum, they will continue to have an important role in modern education?
    Mr. Fallon: Yes. I am happy to pay tribute to those teachers and to the well-run Norfolk education authority. It was one of the first to introduce local schools management, which paved the way for a series of applications for full grant-maintained status.

    Special Schools
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make increased provision for special schools.
    Mr. Fallon: The local authority finance settlement for 1991–92 allows for local authorities in England to spend nearly £17.5 billion on education—16 per cent. more than the 1990–91 settlement. The settlement for 1992–93 allows for spending of over £18.7 billion, a further increase of 7
    804
    per cent. Given good management, that should be sufficient to enable LEAs to provide for children with special educational needs.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the special need in all such schools for nursing cover of the kind currently provided through the health authority? Is he further aware that many special schools, including the excellent Weston Park school in my constituency, are worried about the threat to that cover? If it is not to be provided by the health authority, will the Government give an assurance that the schools themselves will be empowered and funded to offer the nursing care that children with special needs require?
    Mr. Fallon: I shall certainly consider that point. Total spending per pupil on special schools and related provisions is currently running at a level four times higher than on pupils in ordinary mainstream schools.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that needs and expectations in regard to special types of education seem to be rising all the time? It is felt that resources do not always match every kind of special need that may occur, especially in rural primary schools. Does my hon. Friend consider that it is time to take a fresh look at the whole question?
    Mr. Fallon: It is for local authorities to allocate their priorities. We have encouraged those who introduced local management of schools first to look again at their schools, and to ensure that the right balance exists between the funding of secondary schools and that of primary schools.

    Cleveland Schools (Maintenance)
    Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the level of expenditure on maintenance for Cleveland's schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fallon: None, Sir.
    Dr. Kumar: Is the Minister aware that Cleveland's schools need a £50 million maintenance programme? His Department has not allocated a single penny to that programme for 1992–93. Is that part of the disgraceful, phoney citizens charter?
    Mr. Fallon: As I increased Cleveland's capital allocation from £2.9 million to £3.8 million, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the allocation for improvement work in Cleveland's schools has risen from £90,000 this year to £1.4 million next year.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the principle and amount of funding for schools in Cleveland, will my hon. Friend also consider the funding of schools in Ealing? Today, the Department approved grant-maintained status for five schools in wealthy, middle-class and less wealthy areas in that borough. Are we not being taught the lesson that parents want independence for their schools— whether or not they are in the state sector—because that is the best way of achieving the best possible education for children in Ealing, Cleveland and everywhere else?
    Mr. Fallon: Indeed. I congratulate those schools on obtaining grant-maintained status. Ealing has led the way, and I hope that it will not be too long before other education authorities such as Cleveland follow.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not sad that no Cleveland Conservative has been able to come and represent the children of Cleveland today, and that that task has had to be left to a Conservative from Ealing?
    Is the Minister aware that 18 schools in the Cleveland authority area were built before 1914 and that in the current financial year Cleveland has received only a quarter of its capital allocation? It is therefore not surprising that thousands of children in Cleveland's schools are being taught in sub-standard conditions—which must have an effect on education standards. Is it not about time that the Government invested in Cleveland's schools? Or are we seeing yet another example of the application of double standards, with Ministers providing no money for the public sector, while sending their own children to school in the private sector?
    Mr. Fallon: I do not see how either the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) can describe the £3.8 million allocation for Cleveland as "no money". The plain fact is that there are steps that Cleveland should be taking to improve the way that it manages education spending. Cleveland has some 20,000 empty school places, and spends some £80 per pupil on its central administration, while only £40 per pupil is spent across the border in North Yorkshire.

    Seven-year-olds (Testing)
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the results of testing seven-year-olds.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The national and local results of the tests of seven-year-olds which I published on 19 December give, for the first time, a clear picture of how our seven-year-olds are performing.
    We should remember that over 70 per cent. of seven-year-olds did reach the targets for that age in English, mathematics and science. However, the wide fluctuations in the performance of individual local education authorities cannot be fully explained by variations in social and economic circumstances or by variations in spending on education, and show that there is plenty of scope to improve standards.
    Mr. Squire: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that school children in my borough of Havering came fifth overall in the national listings. That is a considerable achievement.
    Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my local Labour party is circulating a leaflet, from which I shall now quote—
    Hon. Members: No quotes.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Squire: In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so.
    According to the leaflet, testing at seven is harmful and impractical. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our talented children deserve better than a Labour council, let alone a Labour Government?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is certainly right. The publication of the results allowed tribute to be paid to the local authorities whose results were good and where the hard work of teachers was showing results. The
    806
    publication of results need not be taken as a threat to a good education system. I also share my hon. Friend's regret that some people still seem to think that one can teach a national curriculum sensibly without testing children's progress in an organised fashion. I am astonished that for so long we decided that the results of such tests should be kept secret from the public. It is a great pity that such reactionary ideas are still harboured by the Labour party in Havering and elsewhere.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am glad that the Minister recognises that the results confirm previous studies—including those by Her Majesty's inspectorate—that most children, teachers and schools are getting or offer a good education. Will he commission a report to consider in detail and with expertise the fluctuations to which he referred rather than, as he has, jumping to his own conclusions about why such fluctuations should exist? After all, some areas include children with special needs and some do not; in some areas children have English as a second language and in others they do not; and, as he admits, teachers have had problems with the tests themselves. Will he commission such a report?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that we have had such a clear picture before of the extraordinarily wide variations between different parts of the country. I believe that the publication of these results will cause people to focus on the reasons for the low standards in some places, except for hon. Members representing Bradford and Newham—the two lowest scoring local authorities—whose reaction is that one should not have such testing and that it is merely a problem forced on the local authority. The report that I commissioned to get a debate going on why some schools were failing was commissioned from three people whose expertise has not been challenged and nor, as far as I know, have most of their conclusions. However, I agree with the three wise men and with the hon. Gentleman. The vast majority of teachers are working extremely hard to achieve good results under the national curriculum and our aim is to get all schools up to the standards of the best.
    Dr. Hampson: Did my right hon. and learned Friend notice that last summer the independent report into Leeds primary schools showed clearly that the schools that had had enhanced resources and more teachers could not show a positive correlation between extra resources and higher standards and, moreover, that the report highlighted the problem of teaching methods? It said that far too many teachers had the perception that unless they followed the good practice set down by local authority advisers, their career prospects in the city would be blighted.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The report by Professor Alexander into the Leeds primary school experience should be read carefully by anyone who is interested in primary school methods. There was a project that led to considerable extra expenditure in primary schools which was closely steered into the dogmatic application of a version of teaching methods and which had harmful consequences in schools. It showed not only that there was no correlation between expenditure and results but that the rather ridiculous pursuit of ideology involving child-centred education led to a reduction in standards because of the pressure on teachers.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that according to figures provided in a parliamentary written

    807
    answer by the Minister of State about the proportion of seven-year-olds reaching the highest level of attainment —level 3—Labour-controlled Haringey is equal top and that Labour-controlled Merton, Camden and Hackney are in the top five placings, streets ahead of Tory Wandsworth which is the source of so much dogma about Tory education policies? Will the Secretary of State now applaud those London Labour boroughs for their excellent results?
    Mr. Clarke: When I announced the results I paid tribute to places such as Wigan and St. Helens— [Hots. MEMBERS: "And Hackney".]—and to Hackney if the figures are accurate for level 3 attainments. The hon. Gentleman resisted publication of the information on which he now relies. He reduces it to this petty party political level and then he makes excuses for all the lowest-performing local authorities, which are Labour-controlled, and resists any idea that we should address the teaching methods that have so badly let down children in Newham, Bradford and all the other areas in the bottom 20, almost all of which are Labour controlled.

    University Teaching Buildings
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regarding capital expenditure on new university teaching buildings.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time on a range of matters, including the capital and recurrent funding needs of the universities.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that the Government are cramming more and more university students into the same buildings as a consequence of the fact that they are trying to have people obtain degrees on the cheap? Does he realise that, for example, in University college, Cardiff it is proposed to put an extra 1,000 students into the humanities building over the next three years? Does not he realise that there is a serious danger of recreating the student ferment of 1969? This time, however, it will not be about the great philosophical issues of class warfare and who should run the world; it will be simply about where students can sit to hear a lecture.
    Mr. Howarth: Our policy is to promote wider participation and more opportunity in higher education. At the same time, we are asking for reasonable management efficiency gains on the part of institutions. University capital investment in 1992–93—money provided by the taxpayer—will amount to £216 million. By any standards that is a very significant sum.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings
    808
    with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency of Blyth Valley eagerly await the RECHAR money? As there is a split in his Cabinet will he get off his backside, stop swanning around that desert island and have the money paid?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the RECHAR money has been paid by Britain into the European Community and that we should have it back. I hope that Commissioner Milian will release it speedily.
    Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we already see benefits flowing from the citizens charter? I refer, for instance, to shorter hospital waiting lists and to school performance league tables. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what future benefits—proven benefits—the people of this country will see flowing from the citizens charter?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are determined to get the best possible value for the enormous amount of public money that is available at present. In addition to the improved information and guidance systems that we have already set up, there will be much more flexible opening hours in the case of tax offices, benefits offices and employment service offices, and a much more detailed and personal service for the taxpayer, who has the cost of those services compulsorily extracted in taxes from his or her pocket.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now give a categoric assurance that he will not impose any increase in VAT? Will he please answer yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: We have no plans to increase value added tax.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Is he aware that the words he has just used are exactly the same as those that were used by his predecessor just before her Government increased VAT? Why cannot he tell us now what his plans are? Or is he trying to forget that the Government have increased VAT five times in 13 years? Is not that why everyone has good reason to know that Tory Governments mean higher VAT?
    The Prime Minister: There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is time that the Prime Minister came clean with the country. In view of the record of Conservative Governments in always putting up VAT and in view of the Prime Minister's promises on other aspects of policy, how can he pretend that his intention is not to put up VAT? Do not a Tory Government make VAT rises a certainty?
    The Prime Minister: Before the right hon. Gentleman carries that fib any further, does he recall a further and earlier prediction about value added tax? I quote:

    809
    "Labour foresees 60 per cent. VAT. VAT could rise to 60 per cent. if radical tax changes …are introduced by a new Tory Government."
    The right hon. Gentleman may recall that prediction by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) before the previous election. That was also the time when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that Labour would win by a landslide in the 1987 election. He was wrong on both points then and he is wrong now.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party's commitment to public services is best judged by its record in government? Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain who controls the 20 authorities that have the highest community charge, the highest rent arrears and more vacant properties than any other authorities? Does my borough of Southwark feature among them?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound and fair point. All too often, Labour-controlled councils provide shoddy services at far too high a cost. I well recall the Opposition saying, "If you wish to see what a Labour Government would be like, look at Labour local government."
    Mr. Ashdown: On the subject of predictions, and while the Prime Minister reflects today on the gloomy report by the Confederation of British Industry, does he recall on new year's day this year saying on Radio 4 that in retrospect, we would look back and say that the economic recovery had already started? In retrospect, does the Prime Minister agree that he might spend less time talking up false economic dawns and more time taking action for economic recovery?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a professional gloom monger. When we look back to the present, it will be perfectly clear that in many sectors of the economy, the recovery has indeed started.
    Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as an unfair and anomalous tax on savings and on the rewards of personal enterprise? What would he say today to anyone who was stupid enough to recommit himself to reintroducing it, as Labour has done?
    The Prime Minister: I would certainly find that extraordinary. I would find it even more extraordinary from a party that claims to care about investment, yet clearly has no understanding that investment comes from savings.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Given the commitment in the citizens charter to parental choice in education, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a small delegation of parents from William Gladstone school which has an excellent academic record and an expanding roll but which faces closure as Brent council wishes to sell the school because of its site value?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to see the hon. Member concerned.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest service he can continue to do for the British public is to keep inflation below 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the public remembers that inflation under Labour was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent? In order to keep the level of inflation down, will he have a look at what is happening with the six major grocery chains, the increased share of the margins that they are getting and the fact that their margins are now twice the level found in the major grocery chains throughout Europe?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, inflation is low and we are determined that it will stay low. He will recall that inflation never fell below 7.4 per cent., and that for only a very brief period, while the Labour party was in Government.
    I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Hoey: Before the Prime Minister retires to his desert island, taking with him his Trollope and a very large section of my constituency—without my permission—will he give a clear and simple statement about what he will offer to pensioners so that they can retire with some luxury? Will he match Labour's commitment to pensions?
    The Prime Minister: A commitment to pensions means nothing if it is not matched by a commitment to low inflation.
    Mr. Devlin rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister for many months, and not in this Session, unlike some other hon. Members, now shouting "Marginal seat."
    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the study in The Financial Times on 6 January which pointed to the fact that the northern region has very much benefited from the economic restructuring of the 1980s and is now coming out of recession faster than any other part of the country, due to the success of the regeneration programmes that the Government have put in place in the region?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen that myself in visits to the north. There is no doubt that the north has seen the start of many good things in this country and I am certain that it will be the same again with the economic recovery.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that last Wednesday he had lunch with Lord Rothermere? Did he take the opportunity on that occasion to co-ordinate the campaign of lies and vilification that the Rothermere press has been conducting against the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I took the opportunity to enjoy an excellent luncheon. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Sir John Farr: As my right hon. Friend prepares himself for the important meeting with President Yeltsin later this week in London, will he take the opportunity of seeing what can be done to deal with the massive threat which still exists from all the different independent Russian states?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, this will be an important opportunity to discuss with President Yeltsin both the international difficulties posed by the break-up of the old Soviet Union and the extent to which the west might usefully help the Russian Republic in the difficulties that it faces at present. I anticipate that both those matters will be on our agenda.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Grant: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Haringey council and the children, teachers and parents of Haringey on the fact that our schools came joint top in English, maths and science in the level 3 standard assessment test and top in
    812
    the individual subject of science? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind the fact that Haringey is an inner-London borough and has all the associated problems? Is not he ashamed at the remarks of his predecessor and of his ministerial colleagues who have constantly criticised Haringey's education policy and have cut its revenue support grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Haringey receives an increase in its revenue support grant and standard spending assessment as a result of its excellent work in educating the children at its schools?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am especially pleased to hear that he now supports the tests introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I can tell from what he said that he is a strong supporter of the parents charter, without which those results might not have been fully known.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate British industry on the fact that it has achieved record exports in the past quarter, that 27 of the top 50 European companies are British and that Britain exports more of its national product than Japan? Are not those successful British companies sick and tired of being talked down by the doom-monger Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday's trade figures showed clearly that export volumes were at record levels even in a worldwide economic downturn. My hon. Friend was also right about some Opposition Members talking down the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said in his letter to supporters at the beginning of this year that Britain had a £20 billion trade deficit, when the truth was that the deficit fell by a half and the right hon. Gentleman's figures were wholly wrong. Perhaps he will now write again to his supporters and correct his error.

Industrial Relations
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's legislative intentions, following the consultation on the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s", which was published in July last year.
Like all our previous trade union legislation, the proposals that I am announcing today have two main objectives—first, to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions and, secondly, to protect employees, employers and the community at large against the abuse of industrial power. Each of the proposals is carefully designed to meet a clear deficiency in our present arrangements, that has been acknowledged by many of the organisations that have commented on the Green Paper.
The CBI says in its response that its members
"warmly welcome the Government's continued commitment to reviewing the law governing the conduct of industrial relations".
The Engineering Employers Federation says that its members
"strongly support the Government's objective of providing a balanced and effective framework of trade union and industrial relations law"
and that
"the step by step approach has been seen by all to have worked successfully and it is right that it should continue."
The Institute of Personnel Management says— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down and listen to the statement, and I remind hon. Members that we have a busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Howard: The Green Paper, said the IPM,
"is primarily aimed at particular abuses which it is the duty of Government to address in order to protect the rights of the individual."
In all, we have had more than 100 responses to the Green Paper. These have come from employers' organisations, individual companies, trade unions and other organisations, and from individual people. The number of responses is in itself a clear indication of the interest the Green Paper has aroused and the importance of the issues it has raised. Most of the proposals it contains have been widely welcomed.
I deal first with the proposals to protect the public against strikes and other forms of industrial action. The first proposal was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on the citizens charter.
We proposed in the citizens charter to provide a new right for members of the public in relation to unlawful industrial action which affects a public service. This proposal has been widely welcomed. At present, the employer has the right to bring proceedings against a trade union which organises an unlawful strike. Members of the public, who are usually the specific target of industrial action, have no such right. If the employer does nothing, the citizen is defenceless.
We therefore intend to introduce legislation to establish a new right for members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting a public service if the employer concerned fails to use the remedies
814
available to him. This proposal has been widely welcomed. It will enhance the protection of the public, and it will be a further deterrent to unlawful industrial action.
The consultations have also shown that there is strong support for legislation to require trade unions to give seven days' notice of strikes. Strike notice is a well established feature of the law in other countries. This requirement will help to protect the general public against lightning strikes in the public services. It will also allow employers to take steps to safeguard jobs and businesses.
In addition, there has been strong support for the proposal to reduce the scope for intimidation and fraud by requiring strike ballots to be conducted by post and to be subject to independent scrutiny.
These measures will add significantly to the protection which our legislation already provides against strikes which are deliberately targeted on the life of the community. We intend to introduce legislation to implement all of them.
I turn now to the rights of individual union members. The first concerns an employee's freedom to join the union of his choice. Only last year we saw how building workers who left the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians when its leadership fell into the hands of the far left were prevented from joining the General, Municipal and Boilermakers union, even after the GMB had indicated that it would welcome them. That was clear evidence of how the operation of the Trades Union Congress's Bridlington principles can deny employees the chance to belong to the union of their choice.
Contrary to the claims of the TUC, only a minority of employers have expressed reservations about the change in the law that we propose to make. We therefore propose to introduce legislation which will give individual employees the right to join the union of their choice, free from interference from any arrangement between trade union bosses which is designed to deny them that choice.
The consultation also showed widespread support for the proposition that the law should not allow trade union dues to be deducted from an employee's salary without his or her individual consent. Since the Green Paper was published, there has been further evidence of the scope for abuse of check-off arrangements. On 8 December, for example, the Sunday Times reported that union subscriptions had been deducted from the pay of some 10,000 construction workers in London, but that these subscriptions had never reached their trade union. The case for reform of the law is clear.
Some employers have said that they believe that a requirement to review the check-off annually would be unnecessary and burdensome. I have therefore decided to accept a proposal from the Institute of Personnel Management that employers should be required to seek the consent of their employees to the check-off every three years. In addition, we propose to introduce legal safeguards which will ensure that in future no employee has union subscriptions deducted from his pay without his individual consent.
Again, no one has seriously questioned the need for further legislation to protect union members against the sort of financial mismanagement which was revealed in the Lightman report into the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers. Nor is there any serious doubt that the law on trade union elections needs to be strengthened, in the

815
light of the ballot rigging in the 1990 elections for the national executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
I have decided to adopt a suggestion which was put to my Department in the course of the consultation that unions should be required to employ a mailing house or some other external agency to distribute and store voting papers. This proposal is, I believe, the most effective way to ensure that electoral fraud of the kind which occurred in the Transport and General Workers Union is not repeated. I have also accepted the advice of a number of organisations, including the TUC, that, for security reasons, union members should not have access to the names and addresses of other union members. Instead, I propose that the independent scrutineer should be allowed such access on behalf of any union members who are concerned that the list may not be accurate.
The consultations have reflected a wide range of views on the proposal in the Green Paper relating to the legal status of collective agreements. There was both support for and opposition to the specific proposal on which we sought views. Some employers' organisations have put forward alternative suggestions. This is an important and complex issue. We shall continue to consider the scope for amending the law in the light of the comments that we have received and, if appropriate, we shall consult further before taking a final decision.
It should be clear to everyone that this has been a genuine and productive consultation. We have modified some of our proposals in the light of the views we have received. But the consultations have shown that there is widespread majority support amongst employers for a great majority of the proposals in the Green Paper.
The legislative plans that I have announced today are designed to consolidate and build on the improvement in industrial relations which we have achieved over the last 12 years. They will increase the rights of individual members of the public, individual trade union members, individual employees and the community at large. They will ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law in order to maintain that progress in the 1990s.
The clearest evidence of the progress we have achieved so far is our record on strikes. More working days were lost because of strikes in the last 12 months of the last Labour Government than have been lost in all the last five years put together.
No one should be surprised by that stark contrast. Before 1980, the law gave trade unions a virtually unlimited licence to organise strikes and industrial action, not matter how remote from the original dispute. There was no requirement for ballots before strikes, and the law allowed flying pickets to spread the disruptive effects of industrial action far and wide.
The choice before the House and the country is clear. On the one hand, there is the threat to roll back the legislation of the last 12 years, to put the trade unions back in the driving seat and make strikes easier, longer, more frequent and more damaging than ever before. That is the policy of the Labour party. On the other hand, we can carry forward the process of reform and build on the achievements of the last 12 years.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Howard: That is what the decisions which I have announced today will do, and that is why they deserve the support of the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: Let me deal with the main points of the statement item by item. On the seven-day cooling-off period, it is correct, as the Minister says, that there are similar provisions in other European countries, but will he confirm that, in those countries where there is a cooling-off period for unions, there is also a cooling-off period for employers? Is it his intention to legislate even-handedly for both?
Secondly, as for ballots before strikes, surely the important requirement is independent scrutiny of the ballot, whether it is postal or workplace. May I put it to him that the danger of his proposal of making workplace ballots illegal, which is what he is proposing, even where there is independent scrutiny, is that the participation level is lower for such ballots? Since he had the gall to suggest that employers' organisations all support the proposals, may I put it to him that this and many other parts of his provisions were vehemently opposed by employers' organisations, including the CBI, the British Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Personnel Management?
Let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the Engineering Employers Federation said:
"Our experience is that provided they are properly conducted"—
the very point that I am making—
"secret workplace ballots are not subject to harassment and have additional beneficial features. EEF experience is that workplace secret ballots have a significantly higher level of return than postal ballots."
Thirdly, as for members of the public suing in respect of unlawful action in the public sector, will the Secretary of State confirm that unions have no immunity now for unlawful action in respect of public services and, that, although there may be some doubt about it, the only decided case in law held that the public already have the right to sue in respect of action that affects them?
On the fourth part, relating to Bridlington, the Minister proposes legislation. Six months ago, we put to him the problem of single-union agreements and he dismissed it. The CBI, the British Institute of Management and the
Institute of Personnel Management have all put to him the same point about single-union agreements. Will the Minister comment specifically on that?
While we are on the subject of "joining the union of your choice", will he ensure that the security guards who are presently members of the Transport and General Workers Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, employed by the Ministry of Defence, are allowed to continue as members of the union of their choice and are not ordered into another—
Mr. Howard: We shall allow it.
Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State can confirm that when he speaks. If, however, he believes in the right to a free and independent trade union, let him grant that right to the employees at the Government communications headquarters, who have been denied it for the past eight years. Let him also take action against the Economic League, which prevents that right from being exercised by many people.

817
The Secretary of State gives a wholly misleading account of how check-off operates. Will he confirm that it operates only if there is prior written consent on the part of the employee—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to those below the Gangway that the debate takes place at this end of the Chamber.
Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that check-off already requires the prior written consent of employees and that, contrary to what he has just said, an employee can withdraw his consent to that at any time? Legally enforceable agreements formed the main part of the Secretary of State's original proposals. I gather that that issue has now been kicked into touch. Perhaps we shall hear no more about it.
The proposals are significant not for what they do but for what they omit. If the purpose of the statement is, as the Secretary of State says, to protect individuals against the abuse of industrial power, why does it contain scores of rights exercisable against trade unions, but not a single right to a British employee, male or female, exercisable for fair treatment by the employer at the workplace?
Why is Britain the only country in Europe that does not give legal protection to our 6 million part-time employees? Why is Britain the only country in Europe with no right to a minimum holiday entitlement? Why does Britain have the worst maternity rights, the fewest equal opportunities and the least protection against poverty pay? If the purpose is to protect the individual, why do we not sign the European social charter, as every other country is prepared to do?
The Secretary of State's proposals are not for the sake of better industrial relations but, for the sake of the worst prejudices of the Tory party. Can there be a more telling difference between the day when the CBI has confirmed the depth of the recession, unemployment is rising faster than in any other European country, we have a training and skills crisis, which the Government are making worse daily, and the fact that the Conservatives are returning to the agenda of the 1970s because they have no answers to the problems of the 1990s? That may have worked in different circumstances in a different decade, but in 1992 the people of this country look for something better. They will get it under Labour.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has huffed and puffed, but he has not told us the Labour party's position on a single proposal contained in the Green Paper. When I announced the Green Paper last July, the hon. Gentleman said that he would examine our proposals carefully. In November, I wrote to him pointing that the formal period for consultation was ending and I asked when we might hear his response to the Green Paper. I have heard nothing. This afternoon, he has treated the House to an extraordinary collection of half-truths and inaccuracies, but he has not told us the Labour party's attitude to the proposals that I identified in the statement.
On ballots, the hon. Gentleman quoted what one of the employers' organisations said about workplace ballots and its proviso that they should be properly conducted. There is always the risk with workplace ballots that they will not be properly conducted, which is why we think that it is
818
infinitely preferable to have postal ballots. The hon. Gentleman did not explain the Labour party's attitude to that.
On the protection of members of the public, the hon. Gentleman said that a case had been decided, but that there was some doubt about the position. If he agrees that the position is as we think it should be, why does he not say that he agrees with the proposals in the Green Paper, which we intend to put into legislation?
On the right of trade unionists to join a trade union of their choice, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that even Bill Morris, the general secretary-elect of the trade union that sponsors the hon. Gentleman, has said:
"today when we are about choice and opportunity for the individual there is no choice in this matter or opportunity within them".
Ron Todd, the present general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, has said:
"All I want, quite frankly, is the right for a worker to determine the union he wishes to join".
The hon. Gentleman is behind even the leaders of the trade union that sponsors him.
I can certainly confirm on the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised that those workers who work at the Ministry of Defence can continue to be members of the union of their choice. That is the answer to the specific question that was put.
Mr. Blair: They can carry on as members of the TGWU?
Mr. Howard: They can certainly carry on. That was never in doubt. The dispute, of which much has been made, I regret to say, by some ill-informed members of the Labour party, was about recognition, not trade union membership.
On check-off, the hon. Gentleman said that we could not have that now unless individual trade unionists gave their consent. He is wrong about that, too. There is no such provision in law, and that is one of the things on which we shall legislate.
The most extraordinary feature of the Opposition's response has been the deafening silence of their principal spokesman in relation to the proposals. There are two explanations for that. First, the hon. Gentleman is terrified of saying anything that would upset his trade union paymasters; secondly, he is afraid to do anything that would remind the electorate of the chains that bind his party to those paymasters—the bosses of the trade unions.
When he is challenged about the Opposition's attitude to trade union legislation, the hon. Gentleman says that that is a matter of public record. It is indeed. The hon. Gentleman is on record in the House as describing ballots before strikes as
"a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 210.]
The shadow Chancellor has described strike ballots as an "irrelevant effrontery". The Labour party has opposed—
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing disorderly.
Mr. Flannery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is making a second statement. He has already made a long statement, and you are letting him get away with it.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the questions that were put to him. If I cut him short, there will be complaints about that.
Mr. Howard: The Labour party has opposed every trade union Bill that we have introduced since 1979. Opposition Members have persistently evaded questions about their plans to repeal that legislation, but they have been more forthcoming about the new powers that they have promised the trade unions, including powers to force employers to recognise and negotiate with trade unions—
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with this, please. I do think that the Minister is going a bit beyond the statement now. He should confine himself to the questions put to him.
Mr. Howard: The lengths to which the Labour party will go to rush to the defence of its trade union paymasters whenever this issue is raised are remarkable. The truth is that it is this party and this Government who have consistently sought to defend employees and trade union members over the past 12 years, and that is what the country will bear in mind when we come to the general election.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Flannery: The Secretary of State's answer took five minutes!
Mr. Speaker: Please do not shout at me.
I believe that it is desired to deal with consideration of the Prison Security Bill by 7 o'clock, and we also have a 10-minute Bill this afternoon. I shall therefore allow questions on this matter, which I understand will require legislation anyway, to go on until 4.30 pm; then we will move on. I ask for brief questions, and I ask hon. Members to try to keep off party-political point scoring.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, had this legislation been in place in 1984, my constituents would have been spared all the corruption and theft in the National Union of Mineworkers and the harassment and intimidation in the strike that took place that year? Will he also confirm that we are in danger of all this excellent body of legislation being swept away should the Labour party win the general election?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Others will have noted the way in which Labour Members stormed out while my hon. Friend was pointing out the extent to which the rights of her constituents would have been protected had this legislation been in force at the time —and the extent to which those rights would be endangered if the Labour party came to power.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Nichol Stephen: There are—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Faulds: My point of order is simple: have you, Mr. Speaker, no control at all over the misuse of the Government Front Bench that occurs when the nastiest man in Government abuses it every time he appears at the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, I do not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".] I heard an unparliamentary word, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. Faulds: Of course I withdraw the word, but the fact still applies. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. It would be helpful to the whole House if we could deal with this important matter of trade union legislation in a non-party-political way.
Mr. Stephen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues and I would agree with several points in this statement—for instance, in relation to balloting of trade unions, where the Secretary of State will be aware that my party was ahead of the Government with reform proposals. However, we are worried, perhaps most about the timing of today's statement, which was purely party political—an attempt to put the heat on the Labour party, with a motivation that is entirely negative.
That is to be regretted. My party would have preferred to welcome a fundamental reform of industrial relations in a statement that introduced greater employee participation, greater encouragement of employee-management buy-outs and more profit-sharing. The statement ignores all that. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the question?"]
So my question is, does the Secretary of State agree that what is required is legislation and a statement from him to bring together the two sides of industry in this country and to encourage co-operation between employer and employee? Is not the motivation behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement simply party politics rather than any deep desire to see both sides of industry engage in greater co-operation?
Mr. Howard: May I allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the timing of the statement? Having issued a Green Paper in July and assessed the responses to the consultation in which we engaged following the publication of that document, we have a duty to the House to report the outcome of that consultation process to it and to make clear our intentions. That is what lies behind the statement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken unprecedented steps over the past 12 years to encourage employee participation and management buy-outs. Many of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred complement the proposals that I have announced.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not a remarkable fact that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has now apparently conceded that the industrial relations law reforms that have been introduced by this Government have worked? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that they have been largely responsible for the huge

821
increase in inward investment in this country? Is it not right that we should build on that with the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced?
Mr. Howard: In my experience, one should treat any apparent concession by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) with great caution. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point about inward investment. Survey after survey has shown that one of the vital advantages that attract inward investment to this country is our new atmosphere of stable industrial relations and our strike-free record. We must build upon that to take advantage of the opportunities that will be available to us in the 1990s.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not all rather sad and entirely predictable that, in the run-up to a general election, the Government are indulging in an exercise of union-bashing? As there is no time for any of this stuff to be enacted, is this not a wholly transparent and competely shoddy and tacky exercise in electioneering? Instead of looking to the past, why does the Secretary of State not look to the future and note that all successful industrial countries regard the trade unions as valuable partners with whom to co-operate?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by SOGAT, again asks about the timing of the statement—
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Howard: I answered a previous question about the timing of the statement—
Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State should have some knowledge of these matters, but he has said that I am sponsored by a union that does not exist.
Mr. Howard: I perhaps should have said SOGAT 82. The hon. Gentleman asked about timing, but I answered the question about timing that was raised by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party. Each of the measures that I have announced today is designed to deal with a particular abuse that needs to be dealt with. The Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman was not prepared to deny that, or to say that his party disagrees with the actions that I propose.
Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), with whom I have a great deal in common, has just suggested that we should look to the future. What would my right hon. and learned Friend think of the future if his Department was in the hands of somebody who has described a trade union ballot as
"a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement"?—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; vol. 48. c. 210.]
Mr. Howard: That is exactly what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said about union ballots, and that is the kind of future—[Interruption.]
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Not true.
Mr. Howard: Oh yes, it is all on the record. That is what the country could look forward to if the Labour party won the election and the hon. Member for Sedgefield were to occupy my office.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is it not clear that my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement will be widely regarded as a fair, sensible and logical step forward in our trade union legislation, and that many people will contrast it favourably with the chaos that would follow a return to the 1970s-style legislation advocated by the Labour party? In particular, will not the proposal to allow union members to join the union of their choice be a significant restraint on extremist trade union leaders who will otherwise face the mass exodus of their members to unions that more accurately reflect the aspirations of their members?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters, has correctly identified one of the advantages of that proposal. It is noteworthy that, while my hon. Friends have been prepared to comment and give their views on the proposals that I identified in the statement, all that we have heard from the Labour party is a generalised rant.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the Secretary of State not understand the simple point that giving people the right to join a union of their choice is meaningless unless the union of their choice has the right to negotiate on their behalf? Will he accept that most people in those circumstances would prefer to join a union with such a power? Why is he not introducing a provision that applies in many other European countries and that ensures that the union that represents, within a company, a majority of the people whose jobs are appropriate to that union has a guaranteed legal right to be recognised as the negotiator?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, confuses the right to join a trade union with recognition. Under the proposals that I have announced, any trade union member will be able to join the union that has recognition rights at that workplace. Increasingly, there are many other reasons why workers wish to join trade unions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that fact.
Mr. James Lamond: As a Member sponsored by the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, I can tell the Secretary of State that many thousands of members of my union expect him to turn what talent he has to increasing employment—a far more important priority than this window dressing for election purposes.
I wish to explore a point of detail. Did the Secretary of State say that the members of a union should be allowed to decide for themselves whether the check-off system should be applied to their wages, because some of the money taken in check-off had never reached the unions? If that is so, the money must have remained with the company that checked off the wages. Even if employees decide to have this system, how does that protect them from the company stealing from the unions?
Mr. Howard: No, on the last point. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report in the Sunday Times of 8 December, he will see that there was no question of the money staying in the hands of the employer or of the

823
company on that occasion. It was diverted from the trade union for which it was intended. Therefore, it was diverted not by the employers but by those who collected it—those to whom it was entrusted by the employers.
I want to deal with the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman, that about jobs. Perhaps the most important contributor to an environment in which we can create jobs and employment in the 1990s, after the conquest of inflation, is the creation of stable industrial relations and a strike-free economy. That is what the Government have achieved, and that is what would be destroyed by the election of the Labour party.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Did my right hon. and learned Friend note the extraordinary contrast between the angry, non-constructive outburst by Labour Back Benchers and the articulate vacuum of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who, to paraphrase W. S. Gilbert, is a man who says nothing in particular and says it very well? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that much of what has been achieved over the past 12 years might be at risk if we were to find ourselves governed by a party whose 233 existing Members of Parliament include 155 who are sponsored by trade unions?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Sedgefield is good at putting a covering of thin tissue over the raw nerve that is clearly exposed whenever Labour Back Benchers speak on that subject.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: As a Member of Parliament sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers, of which I have been a member for 58 years —having joined it before the Secretary of State was born —I am extremely proud of its traditions and history. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposed legislation is neither an industrial relations charter nor an industrial relations Bill, but an anti-trade union Bill.
The Secretary of State flings charges about paymasters. In the shoddiest display that I have seen from a member of the Government Front Bench in 26 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is introducing a Bill on behalf of his paymasters. There must be a change of Government, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and people like him must be defeated.
Mr. Howard: The Bill will protect the people. It will protect ordinary members of trade unions. I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast away his slogans and to consider the detailed provisions that we propose, which are designed to remedy specifically identified abuses. If the hon. Gentleman will do so, with his background he will recognise that steps must be taken if ordinary citizens and trade union members are to enjoy the protection that they properly deserve.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on extending real choice to individual workers, so that they may decide for themselves whether or not to belong to a trade union—and which trade union they join. Is it not the case that Labour has opposed every item of this Government's trade union legislation, and cannot be relied upon to look after the interests of individual union members?
Mr. Howard: It is certainly the case that Labour has opposed every trade union reform that we introduced over the past 12 years. This party and this Government will
824
continue to do whatever is necessary to protect individual members of the public and trade union members, so that they are not bullied and taken advantage of by those who have more power than they do.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: The Secretary of State made his statement today with the same air of intense sincerity that he adopted when he introduced the poll tax. Perhaps I may test the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he wants to respect individual rights. Will he approach the Secretary of State for Defence, who unilaterally decided to withdraw Transport and General Workers Union negotiating rights from those employed at COD Donnington in my constituency—who, for the whole of their working lives, have served this country's defence industries through their work in depot security?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is entirely ludicrous for him to claim that he will continue to recognise the individual's right to be a member of a trade union when that union will cease to have negotiating rights? Will he approach the Secretary of State for Defence about that matter, so that we may see whether or not there is any sincerity in his commitment?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman genuinely misunderstands the position. There was a reclassification of the workers concerned, and the group into which they were reclassified is one for which the National Union of Civil and Public Servants traditionally has recognition rights. That union's general secretary said:
"it should also be accepted that, since Ministry of Defence security guards are now regraded as non-industrial civil servants, NUCPS has negotiating rights in that area."
The workers concerned can continue to be members of the unions to which they have always belonged, but the logic of the reclassification is that the NUCPS should have recognition rights.
Mr. James Paice: The Green Paper that gave rise to today's statement also included the proposal that trade union leaders' salaries and perks should be declared, so that union members could see where their subscriptions were going. If that is still my right hon. and learned Friend's intention, does he agree that union members should also know just how much is being spent on the sponsorship of Labour Members, including all those in the elected shadow Cabinet?
Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is still our intention to legislate on the basis of the original proposal for the disclosure of salaries of trade union officers. I did not mention that in my statement, because it has aroused little controversy or disagreement. As for my hon. Friend's suggestion about the sponsorship of Members of Parliament, it is certainly an intriguing thought; at present, however, we have no plans to legislate in that regard.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Do not the Secretary of State's attacks on the trade union movement, his manipulation of the television coverage of today's statement and the use of the race card represent the policies of discredited regimes? I am reminded of the 1930s. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Dr. Goebbels incarnate: this is a squalid statement from a squalid Minister.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by SOGAT '82—
Mr. Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no such union as SOGAT '82.
Mr. Howard: I am relying on the Register of Members' Interests for information about the hon. Gentleman's trade union membership.
Mr. Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking up time. I think that the House accepts that there is no such union, if the hon. Gentleman says that that is the case.
Mr. Litherland: Let me put the Secretary of State out of his misery. My union is the Graphical, Paper and Media Union.
Mr. Howard: No doubt that information will reach the Register of Members' Interests in due course.
The point about the hon. Gentleman's question is that, like other questions from Labour Members, it was couched in generalities—not very agreeable generalities, but generalities none the less. When will the Labour party address the specific problems that gave rise to the Green Paper and the solutions that we suggest are appropriate, so that we can improve the protection given to ordinary members of the public and ordinary trade union members? That is the purpose of our proposals.
Mr. Tim Janman: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, today's announcement will strike a chord with the majority of the British people— hence the unreconstructed gibberish that we have heard from Labour Members.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, towards the end of last year, thousands of my constituents were caused considerable inconvenience and distress by unofficial action on the Fenchurch Street line? The management of British Rail did not have the guts to do anything about it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement will offer hope to my constituents? Once the new laws that he proposes have been introduced, those constituents will have the opportunity to do what British Rail's management are too gutless to do.
Mr. Howard: My proposals would certainly cover the circumstances described by my hon. Friend. No doubt he will draw his constituents' attention to Labour's reaction to those proposals, and will make it clear to them that we, unlike Labour, are prepared to act to protect them.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: As a former trade union officer, I get the impression that the Secretary of State has never worked in industry in his life. I used to deal with union members who were on the check-off system, and not once was a check-off allowed to be taken from a person's wages without that person's express permission. Members also had the right to end the facility whenever they wished.
The Secretary of State suggested that money might not reach a union after a check-off system had been imposed. I challenge him to hand over his facts to the police: that would be fraud, and would bring not only employers but trade unions into disrepute. Because of Tory legislation, employers in my constituency are starting people but
826
sacking them after two years so that they are outwith the employment legislation, and then restarting them the following day.
If the Secretary of State is interested in the rights of workers, he should ensure that he is in favour of rights for every worker and does not merely attack the trade unions. In addition, he should get the unemployment down in my area, because it is a disgrace.
Mr. Howard: I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, that it was a Conservative Government—
Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it about sponsorship? I think that we have heard enough about that.
Mr. Watson: Is it in order for the Secretary of State to refer continually to the trade unions by which hon. Members are sponsored without pointing out that, like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who is feeding him the information, he is a director of one company and a consultant of two others? He gets paid for that, but we do not get personal money from sponsorship—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Sponsorship of all kinds is in the Register of Members' Interests. This takes up a lot of time.
Mr. Howard: I thought that members of the Opposition were proud of their links with the trade unions, but I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). I remind him that a Conservative Government first introduced the right to obtain compensation for unfair dismissal, and he should bear that in mind.
On check-off, he said that, to his knowledge, employees —trade union members—were asked at, I think, regular intervals for their consent. That is not a universal practice. If that is a practice of which the hon. Gentleman approves, surely he will approve of this proposal to make it a universal practice and ensure that individual trade union members have the opportunity to give their consent at regular intervals. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a good idea, why does he not support the proposal?
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Sponsored by Lloyd's.
Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, just as the Opposition opposed every piece of this Government's trade union legislation, they will begin by opposing this legislation tooth and nail, but that they will then go rather quiet and perhaps do a rather shifty U-turn when they see how well it works, as they have done with previous legislation?
Mr. Howard: I am not as optimistic as my hon. Friend. When the Opposition pretend to do a U-turn, one is well advised to look at the small print. One then finds that there is an appearance of a U-turn but that the small print would take things back to what they were in the 1970s. That is the Opposition's position, and we must ensure that everyone understands that.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Secretary of State realise that today he has done a great disservice to the development of industrial relations by the nature and

827
timing of his remarks? Does he realise that, by moving from the Green Paper to proposals for legislation which he well knows cannot possibly be achieved in the lifetime of this Parliament, he is undermining the rights of trade unions? Why can we not have a White Paper which would include the possibility of considering trade union immunities, the rights of workers—women and part-time workers—and minimum earnings, so that we have an overall picture to ensure that industrial relations in the 1990s are not the victim of cheap electioneering by those on the Front Benches?
Mr. Howard: Surely the hon. Lady will agree that, having issued a Green Paper and received responses to that consultation exercise, it was right that I should report the outcome and the Government's intentions to the House. I had a duty to do that. If the hon. Lady is against such proposals as giving members of the public the right to stop unlawful action, against providing for seven days' notice of strike action and against giving individual trade union members the right to give their consent before money is taken from their pay packet, I can understand her hostility to the proposals. If she is not against those issues, she should support them.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measures he has proposed build on a long list of enhancements of the rights of ordinary trade unionists? To see that this is so, we need look no further than back to the miners' strike, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred, when the might of the National Union of Mineworkers was successfully tackled in an action started by one ordinary mineworker with all the legal assistance of the high street solicitor who conveyanced his house.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend recognises that all the great advances in this area have been won by individuals prepared to stand up for their rights. The purpose of these proposals is to help those individuals. That is why we want to take them forward.
Mr. Terry Rooney: For the avoidance of doubt, will the Secretary of State, accepting that there is another arena for party political broadcasts, tell the House what he thinks about the situation in which a majority of the work force at a single place, having been free to join any trade union, are in one trade union but the employer refuses to negotiate? What would the Secretary of State say to those employers, employees and trade unionists? What advice and legislation is he providing for them?
Mr. Howard: What I would say is that that is a matter for them to resolve and that when, in the past, attempts have been made to introduce legislation to govern these matters, they have been a lamentable failure. The provision in the Employment Protection Act 1975 that represented the last Labour Government's attempt to introduce such a right was repealed in 1980 at the request of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service because it was found to be totally unworkable.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that these proposals are a sensible extension of the kind of legislation that, over the past 12 years, has buttressed the position of individuals, both inside and outside trade unions? Does he agree that
828
it is a gross indictment of the Labour party that it has opposed every single piece of industrial relations legislation which we have introduced over the past 12 years, and which have given us a strike record that is the envy of Europe and far below the European average?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend correctly identifies the difference between the two parties. It was Opposition Members who supported legislation that was responsible for the mob rule of the 1970s and the closed shop, with all its consequences for individual liberty. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sedgefield frowning: he knows perfectly well that that is what happened in our country during those years. It is from that fate that the Conservative Government have rescued the country.
Mr. Chris Mullin: The Secretary of State will be aware that Sunderland contains the headquarters of the North of England building society, whose employees have twice voted, in secret ballots organised by the Electoral Reform Society, to join the very moderate Banking, Insurance and Finance Union. On both occasions, the management have told the employees to get stuffed. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to give those employees any rights as citizens, or is this all a fraud?
Mr. Howard: I said a few moments ago that previous attempts to legislate on this matter had failed miserably. As a consequence of the legislation that I have mentioned, it was discovered that there is no workable way of providing rights of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I tell the Secretary of State that I am very proud to be sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, and not by Greek fascists? Can he tell me how this statement will help the workers —trade unionists—at Coloroll in my constituency, who at an industrial tribunal won the right to more redundancy pay but 12 months later have not received payment because his Department does not have civil servants to process the claims? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me where those people will get jobs, given the horrendous rise in unemployment in my constituency?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Lady writes to me about the particular case to which she has referred, I shall certainly look into it. We have taken steps to try to ensure that the period for which some people have had to wait for redundancy payments is kept to the absolute minimum.
As for the prospect of those workers finding other employment, I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect that one of the best ways in which we can encourage the creation of more jobs is to create a strike-free environment. Our reforms have contributed greatly to the achievement of that objective. The legislation introduced by the party that the hon. Lady supports had precisely the opposite effect.
Mr. Dave Nellist: The Secretary of State describes the statement as aiming for the protection of millions, but is it not a fact that he is talking not about individuals and their rights but about the level of profit that employers make out of the weakness of trade union rights which almost 13 years of his Government have brought about? More than 200 Tory Members are sponsored by those employers.

829
The Secretary of State prattles on about the level of trade union wages. For almost 20 years, I have said that trade union leaders should, as I do, take only the wages of the average member they represent. The 200 Tory Members refuse year after year ever to declare the level of their directorships or their consultancy fees, and who pays them for what they say in the Chamber. The weakness of people's rights is not a problem caused by trade unions being too strong. The reason is that the powers of collective action have not been used often enough in the past 10 years to rein in the Secretary of State and his Government.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's views are well known. I suspect that they are shared by a number of Labour Members far greater than the number who will own up to the fact. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's views would lead to consequences opposite to those which, I am prepared to concede, he genuinely desires.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet at the moment. I remind the House that questions to the Department of Employment may be tabled today for answer on 11 February.

Points of Order
4.32 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It will delay matters. I ask hon. Members to raise points of order—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr.Speaker: Please sit down. I ask hon. Members to raise points of order with which I can deal and not questions that might have been directed to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates to Prime Minister's Question Time. I do not know whether mathematics is one of your strong points, and I do not expect an answer to the point today, but you will have noticed that the first five questions to the Prime Minister on the Order Paper today were tabled by Labour Members. Can you explain to the House how it was possible for seven Conservative Back-Benchers to be called? Only the five Labour Members who had tabled questions were called. That is an almost impossible situation to create.
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is usually very helpful and I am quite good at mathematics. It is unusual for all the questions on the Order Paper to come from one party, and it does not help the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition asked three questions today, and a member of one of the minority parties was called. That is why Conservative Members were able to ask seven questions—[Horn. MEMBERS: "He is challenging your ruling."] It is not a challenge; I am giving an explanation. I say to hon. Members who shouted earlier, "Marginal constituency", that these days many constituencies are marginal. I seek to call Members who have not asked the Prime Minister a question this Session. Those who have do not stand quite such a good chance.
Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No more, Harry.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know of your concern for the reputation of the House. So that there is no misunderstanding, would you, from your knowledge of debates and interventions when you have been in the Chair and before, confirm that, when sponsorship is involved —almost every time Labour Members asked questions, the Secretary of State for Employment responded "Sponsored, sponsored, sponsored"—literally not a single penny goes into the pockets of hon. Members? We are not ashamed of our involvement. I have been involved in my own union now for 40 years, and proud of it, but not a single penny has ever gone into my pocket, or ever will.
Will you also confirm that, in the case of hon. Members on the Government Benches, where there are business engagements, involvements and the rest—90 per cent. of Tory Members are involved in such matters—all the money goes into their pockets? That is the difference.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me to comment on, but all these matters should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Going back to the statement of the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that it is the presence of television cameras which persuaded him not just to make a statement but to wrap it up in such a way that it was like a party political broadcast. I do not think that it does the honour of the House any good whatever for a Secretary of State to conduct business in that way, and I think that you should use your good offices to restrain Secretaries of State who abuse the House as this Secretary of State has done.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for whether or not statements are made. If the hon. Member feels strongly about it, it is a matter for the Select Committee on Broadcasting and he should draw it to the Committee's attention.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: And a final point of order.
Mr. Skinner: You said last week that you were concerned about balance and impartiality in the run-up to the election. You showed obvious concern, and we all understood. What I suggest is this. Can you make arrangements, to provide some balance to what we have had today, something which has passed its sell-by date, for us to have a statement, from anybody—we will do it on the Opposition side—which looks into moonlighting by 250 Tory Members and then into the Economic League and the Freedom Association? To top it off, we can look into the freemasons as well.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we will move on.

Animal Experimentation (Cosmetics)
4.36 pm
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics.
The Bill would end animal testing for cosmetic purposes. I am asking the Government to give offical support to a view that is widely held by hon. Members and their constituents.
In the 1988–89 Session, more than 300 hon. Members from all parties signed early-day motions calling for an end to animal testing for cosmetic purposes. A recent survey showed that more than 50 per cent. of Conservative Members and more than 75 per cent. of Opposition Members supported such a ban. Some 85 per cent. of people interviewed in a recent opinion poll felt that this type of animal testing was unacceptable. That strength of feeling was reflected in last November's rally in Brussels, when 4,000 people from all over Europe protested against it, lending support to the 2.5 million-signature petition which was delivered to the European Parliament. Support from Members of the European Parliament was so strong that the Parliament is likely to recommend a ban soon.
At home, the Prime Minister was drawn into the debate when, in a letter dated 27 November 1989, he admitted to being a member of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, an organisation that seeks to find methods of research that do not use live animals. He said:
"The general public can play a very considerable part by refusing to buy cosmetics unless they are clearly stated to have been made without the use of tests on live animals."
What sort of goods are we talking about? It is not just colour cosmetics such as face powder, eye shadow and lipstick but a host of everyday toiletries. How many hon. Members could look round their bathrooms and recognise those products: toothpastes such as Ultrabrite, Colgate, Blue Minty Gel, Mentadent and Signal; shampoos which include Alberto Balsam, VO5, Cream Silk, Head and Shoulders. Timotei and Silkience; other hair products such as Harmony, Clairol, Nice 'n' Easy, Glints, Sunsilk, Free Style and Recital; Deodorants such as Mum, Fresh and Dry, Right Guard and Sure; soaps such as Camay and Palmolive; and items such as Pond's cold cream, vaseline, Ambre Solaire and Cutex nail products?
At Christmas, how many bought loved ones cosmetics by Helena Rubinstein, Vichy or Lancome; stocking-fillers by Studio Line; and perfumes such as Safari, Fiji, Anaïs Anaïs, Armani and Shiseido? How many bought Cachet, Rave or Impulse? How much Lynx, Denim and Polo aftershave was bought?
Those are only some of the brand names of companies such as Alberto-Culver, Cheesebrough-Ponds, Colgate-Palmolive, Elida-Gibbs, Gillette UK Ltd., Bristol-Myers, Proctor and Gamble, L'Oreal UK Ltd. and Shiseido—all of them listed among the chief offenders in the animal-testing stakes.
L'Oreal, for example, while claiming that it prides itself on
"respecting…animals and avoiding any suffering and stress to them"

833
recently kept mini-pigs in solitary confinement for 14 months while it exposed them three times a week to ultra-violet light to test for sun damage to the skin. What price now that golden suntan?
In 1990, in Britain alone, more than 4,000 procedures for testing cosmetics and toiletries were carried out using live animals—mainly guinea pigs and rabbits—to say nothing of the huge numbers carried out by parent companies abroad.
What sort of tests are we talking about? One of the most inhumane must surely be the Draize eye test conducted on rabbits, which are pinned down to have substances dropped regularly into their eyes to see if they blister or bleed. Rabbits are chosen, of course, because they have very poor tear ducts and cannot wash away the substances easily. In 1990, 300 such tests were carried out.
Another common test for skin irritancy is where a rabbit or guinea pig has its back shaved and a substance rubbed in it and it is held in place for weeks on end. Sometimes the rabbit's back is roughened up with hypodermic needles or sandpaper. Often, the results are cracked skin, blistering and bleeding.
Do we really need to use animals at all to test cosmetics and their ingredients. The answer is no. There are plenty of alternative and more reliable methods. Computer models, chemical models, reconstructed skin tests, the use of isolated skin tissues and human volunteers can all be used to test for irritancy, allergy, cancer risk and exposure to light.
Add to that the fact that animal tests are unreliable, and the justification for using them vanishes. Comparative tests carried out at the Huntingdon research centre using mice, guinea pigs, mini-pigs, piglets, rabbits, dogs and baboons showed that the tests produced different results on different animals. So how can they be expected to produce reliable results for human use? As Professor Salzbury, researching for Pfizer, said when asked to comment on the reliability of animal testing:
"We would be better off tossing a coin".
At least there would be a 50:50 chance of being right.
There could perhaps be occasions when animal testing for medical reasons might be justified, so clearly a line must be drawn between products that are genuinely
834
medical and those that claim to be medical—just because an ad man sells them that way. I am thinking of all the claims made for the various toothpastes, for example. In the same way, the British consumer is all too often conned because there is no legal definition of the term "cruelty-free" and no dictionary of acceptable ingredients such as the one that operates in the United States.
As more than 8,000 ingredients have already been established as safe to use, I suggest that the only excuse companies have to use animal tests to extend that list is profit. I contend that the need to protect innocent animals from the clutches of such international profiteers is paramount.
The current European campaign seeks to ban any cosmetic product or ingredient that has been tested on animals, and Britain can give a clear lead here. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, all procedures must be covered by a project licence. Section 5(4) of the Act allows the Home Secretary discretionary powers to refuse to grant a licence where he feels the adverse effect on the animals outweighs any benefits that are likely to accrue.
I therefore ask the Home Secretary to refuse to grant new licences for animal testing for cosmetic purposes, as there are already plenty of ingredients available for new products and plenty of equally—if not more—reliable methods for cosmetic testing. At the same time, I ask the Government to give a legal definition to toiletries and cosmetics so that they may not be confused with medical products. I also ask that a dictionary of acceptable ingredients be compiled so that the British consumer is protected against false claims when buying cosmetics.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Don Dixon, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Norman Hogg.

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
Orders of the Day
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Orders of the Day
Clause 1

  OFFENCE OF PRISON MUTINY
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'prison' to end of line 14 and insert
  "together use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison.'.
  Government amendment No. 7.
  Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
  Government amendment No. 9.
  Mr. Sheerman: It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak to the amendment, partly because the present Bill differs in important respect from that which entered the Standing Committee. Since the Bill came out of Committee, the Government have undergone something of a conversion to the views expressed by the Opposition in Committee and have conceded one of our main objections to the Bill on Second Reading.
  The purpose of amendment No. 4 is simple. Under the Bill as drafted, the offence of prison mutiny can be committed by just two people. As I speak to the amendments, to which I shall refer by number, I shall be explaining that the Government have made an important concession. We do not underrate that concession but we remain unhappy with one or two aspects of the Bill and we hope to secure more changes in it before it completes its passage through Parliament. This is not the time to gloat but, being a politician, I feel that I must say that we told the Government that the Bill was imperfect and required important modifications. Our arguments were so persuasive that we attracted some allies from the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. David Ashby: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only Opposition Members were responsible for persuading the Government, and that I may have played my part in the changes? I have some cause to gloat.
  Mr. Sheerman: I take that point. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and I will both have a little gloat and then get on with discussing amendment No. 4, the purpose of which is to improve the Bill still further.
  We left the Standing Committee thinking that, if the Government made a concession, the first concession that they were likely to make would be that embodied in amendment No. 4. In Committee, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West argued persuasively that the number of people whose involvement constituted a prison
  836
  disturbance or mutiny should be more than two. The Minister of State promised to think seriously about that. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West pointed out perceptively, if the figure is set at two, what two or three prisoners get up to in a cell could be construed as a riot under the Bill, and the 10-year penalty could be incurred. We were therefore somewhat surprised that the Government had not moved on the numbers question.
  Today, we offer the Government an honest compromise of not 12 prisoners but six. It would be a very positive step if we could agree on six, which is a more sensible number than two. We argued in Committee that the number was too low and suggested that 12 would bring it into line with the offence of riot in the Public Order Act 1986, which also carries a 10-year prison sentence. The Minister was unable to accept that suggestion, but said that there had been forceful argument in favour of a lower number and that she would reconsider the matter. We have not heard the result of that reconsideration. Perhaps when the right hon. Lady gets to her feet she will give us some more positive news. Six seems to us to be the number that reasonable people trying to improve the Bill and to reach an accommodation could accept.
  The reason behind the precise wording of the amendment is twofold. First, the notion that two people could commit such an offence in a prison seems far-fetched in the extreme. We have to pinch ourselves sometimes to remind ourselves that this Bill was considered necessary as a result of the Strangeways riot. The Government, again, got their response out of proportion to what had occurred. This was a crisis; a ghastly wave of prison riots and disturbances and the Government had every right to be concerned and to do something about it. But to do something about it in this particular way seems to us to resemble the personal imprint which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State seems to have imposed on the Home Department.
  We have a domestic crisis—it may be dogs one day, a prison riot on another, political refugees on another, the number of offences of taking and driving away cars on another—and the Home Secretary thinks tip yet another piece of instant legislation that he can whip through the House of Commons, because we do not seem to have much of a legislative jam at the moment. We have a small, speedy piece of legislation to react to every ill.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: I will just finish my point; then I will give way.
  A Bill comes to the House, goes to Committee, we get to Report, and in some cases deal with Lords amendments, and then the whole thrust of the legislation is changed. We saw it on the question of political refugees, with three major amendments, last week; we saw it in terms of the dog legislation; and we shall see it, I predict, in terms of the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill We have seen it now, with a glitzy piece of legislation to get the press headlines. When the Bill gets serious scrutiny here, it is shown to be what it is—a fancy, rather than a serious, piece of legislation.
  Mr. Cash: I served on the Committee with the hon. Gentleman and, before he got to the Floor of the House where a bit more attention might be paid to what he was saying, he made a number of rather reasonable and constructive attempts to improve the Bill in his own way.

  837
  Now, however, he is just trying to make cheap political points. He is implying that there is no real need for these proposals. He acknowledged in Committee, by the way in which he approached the proceedings then, that the Bill was necessary. It really is not good enough for him to try to make cheap political points. There is no substance whatever in the line that he is taking.
  Mr. Sheerman: You are long enough in the tooth in this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am, to know that a cheap political point on one side is seen as a valuable political contribution on the other.
  In Committee, our job as Her Majesty's Opposition, very soon to become Her Majesty's Government, is to take these matters extremely seriously. We try to fulfil our role very seriously indeed, as we will when we are Her Majesty's Government. I would not be doing my job as Opposition spokesman on this issue if I did not give the general context of our resistance to, and our pledge not to go in for, short, sharp bits of legislation in every crisis. This Bill has to be seen in that context. Our job as the Opposition is to try to improve this legislation. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West knows that. That is what we tried to do in Committee and what we will continue to do today. We do the work of transforming a nutty, ill-considered piece of legislation into something that does not disgrace the country or the Government.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman persists in saying that this legislation has been brought forward rather quickly. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's predecessor proposed that there should be such legislation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not a reaction to a situation which has grown in a very short space of time. It is a well considered and, as I hope he will admit, necessary piece of legislation to deal with the situation within prisons. Without it, we shall not be able to achieve some of the other reforms that we want.
  Mr. Sheerman: I do not agree with a word of that. The legislation is ill considered. It was seen to be necessary to do something in terms of Strangeways. The right hon. Lady knows the argument, but I will rehearse it for her very briefly.
  An intelligent and serious response to the Woolf commission report would have been a thorough look at the way in which our penal system, under her Government, has fallen to pieces. Instead, we get a cheap-jack piece of legislation that deals not with the real problems but only with the superficial situation. The Opposition deplore that kind of legislative response.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Gentleman is digging himself into a very deep hole. I must assist him, because it is cruelty to animals, almost. He has said that the Government have reacted irresponsibly in all these measures. We shall take the opportunity to remind the country, when the election comes, that the Opposition have tried to water down and reduce the impact of all the recent measures that we have introduced. He mentioned the Asylum Bill. His party voted against that Bill last week.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had some pleasant exchanges in the run-up to this amendment. We must now get back to the amendment before us.
  Mr. Baker: I will restrain myself from reminding the House about the Asylum Bill and about how the Opposition voted against the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, but I will remind the House that they have jibbed at the present Bill as well. They have always said that this measure is not necessary. I can assure the House that this measure is necessary to deal with unrest in our prisons, as my right hon. Friend will make clear in a few moments.
  Mr. Sheerman: I have only one riposte, Madam Deputy Chairman—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant. We are dealing with amendments. The amendment stands in the hon. Gentleman's name and I hope that he will continue to debate it.
  Mr. Sheerman: I will say only that the reason why we are critical of the Government is that they have failed, on the question of law and order, to bring law and order to this country. We want substantial legislation and substantial action, not these bits and pieces of legislation. Our people want to live in peace. The Government will not allow them to do so.
  We are interested in the Government accepting amendment No. 4 to improve this legislation. It would change the numbers. We have rehearsed the arguments reasonably well and we have been joined by members of the Committee on both sides in asking the Government to consider this. It does seem to be an absurdity that only two people need to be involved for an incident to be deemed a riot, and we shall be pressing the amendment very strongly indeed.
  Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman knows that I argued for a larger number than two in Committee, but that was when there were subsections 2(a) and (b). Once (b) goes, we are left with this very strong offence indeed of overthrowing lawful authority. It is not just a minor matter; it is a very big matter. It is not the sort of thing that would be the result of just sitting in a cell; one does not conduct oneself in such a way as to overthrow lawful authority by just sitting in a cell. Prisoners would not just sit there saying. "Wouldn't we like to do this, wouldn't we like to do that?" What is required is unlawful conduct. In those circumstances, should not the number be as in the general law of conspiracy, where it is two or more for most offences? Because we have concentrated on a big offence, is it not time to drop the requirement for six, or four, or 12 and be content with two, given the enormous change of mind by the Government, which I gloat over because it was the result of my persuading?
  5 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: I thank the hon Gentleman for his intervention but cannot agree with him, because the small number is still a worrying aspect of the Bill. He put his finger on it extremely well in Committee, when he said that the Bill was a mish-mash. Sometimes one wonders about the Home Office. Obviously, the Home Secretary or Ministers asked for a Bill to serve a certain purpose. As we explored the Bill in classic fashion, what we found was a mish-mash between public order and the notion of riot.

  839
  The Bill takes from other legislation the offence of mutiny in the armed services. Every time the right hon. Lady got into a discussion on it, it became clear that the drafters of the legislation had never made up their minds whether the Bill was about prison mutiny or prison riot. In Committee, we tried to make it clear that the two were not the same. It might be applicable to say that two people in the armed services refusing to fire on the enemy as the enemy advanced were committing mutiny, because only two could be detrimental to good order in a regiment in a battle situation. That is understandable.
  Can one imagine two prisoners running amok in a prison and causing a riot, whether they run amok in their cells or outside? That is the point on which the Minister failed to convince us. I still believe that the Bill could be improved in that regard.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair argument, but surely two prisoners engaging in a disturbance could quickly become four prisoners, then six and then eight. As we saw in the riots in Strangeways, these incidents escalate very quickly. Surely two is a sensible number.
  Mr. Sheerman: Knowing his record on the Government Benches, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was intervening on the basis of being an expert on mutiny. He makes a fair point that two soon becomes four and then six. We say that the trigger number is probably more sensible at six, which can be identified more realistically.
  We have had the concession from the Government in regard to two people doing something non-violent. On the other hand, two people acting even in an obstreperous way might fall under the legislation when their behaviour did not amount to riot, mayhem or disorder. We are trying to make a positive point.
  The second reason for the amendment was given in Committee not just by the Opposition but by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West. The number of people who can be guilty of mutiny must be higher than the number living in one cell. I hope that the right hon. Lady will come back on that. It would be wrong for behaviour in a cell to be caught by the legislation and to carry the maximum sentence of 10 years. Because of the cramped conditions in which three men may share a cell, difficulties can arise which should not fall foul of the legislation. We are offering a compromise in suggesting that the number be six. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment in the spirit that we are not tied to six, but think that two is too few.
  Amendment No. 5 goes to the very heart of the difference between us on the Bill. We are trying to ensure that the offence of prison mutiny consists of actual violence or the threat of violence to overthrow lawful authority in a prison. It is a measure of the extent to which the Government have lost their way in the Bill that the Opposition should need to propose the amendment.
  The Bill was conceived as a response to the appalling scenes which we witnessed at Strangeways and other prisons. No one denies that we should be protected from that mayhem and disorder and that public property should be protected from such damage. Those scenes were characterised by violent behaviour and enormous destruction.
  It is such incidents which we are all concerned to eradicate and which concern the public. The original
  840
  intention of the legislation was to tackle just such incidents. However, that intention seems to have got lost in drafting. In Committee we were told repeatedly by the Minister of State that the Bill was dealing not with riot, which was what we were all concerned about, but with mutiny. I can refer the right hon. Lady to her words if she wishes.
  In introducing the concept of mutiny from legislation dealing with the armed forces, the Government have changed the whole purpose of the Bill. As originally drafted, the Bill would have encompassed a wide range of non-violent protest, for which the draconian penalty of 10 years' imprisonment would have been inappropriate.
  The Government's decision to accept in Committee the Opposition amendment to remove subsection 2(b) was an enormously important change and removed the part of the Bill which we found most objectionable. I do not have to repeat my welcome for that, but that welcome change did not go far enough.
  The offence of prison mutiny can still be committed where no violence, or threatened violence, has taken place. When we discussed the matter in Committee, both my colleagues and the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West continually pressed the Minister to give an example of behaviour which would warrant an offence of mutiny in which no violence or threat of violence took place. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) may be interested to know that what we were trying to find w.as a non-violent offence that would fall into that category. I do not believe that anyone in Committee was convinced by the examples that the Minister gave.
  The right hon. Lady found herself in enormous difficulty. We heard of improbable situations in which prisoners strolled into communications rooms and, completely peacefully, refused all attempts by prison staff to move them. We had examples of prisoners sitting down or not going back to their cells, or collectively sitting in a room because, according to the Minister, they were
  "disgruntled, unhappy and wish not to undertake to obey the lawful order of the prison."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 19 December 1991; c. 41.]
  Those are incidents which occur frequently in prisons and which officers are trained to handle. That is their expertise. Such incidents are dealt with currently under rule 47.19 of the prison rules, which makes it a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to disobey any lawful order. Such behaviour does not warrant a 10-year sentence, nor is it behaviour about which the public is concerned.
  As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said in Committee:
  "We should not allow the sort of offences that are dealt with under rule 47.19 … to be included here. We must be sure to draw a clear line between those two sorts of offences so that we can deal with serious cases such as those that we have seen in the past 12 months. I am not sure that the clause is very helpful. In every serious case that we consider there is violence or the threat of violence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1991; c. 35–6.]
  It is absolutely necessary for the element of violence to be present.
  It is the Opposition's view that legislation must be precisely phrased. Clause 1 is still open to abuse. It could be used for behaviour which is non-violent and simply does not warrant an offence carrying a 10-year maximum. Our amendment would ensure that the new offence was focused on the sort of behaviour about which we are all greatly concerned.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are not concerned purely with the precision of the Bill? Lord Justice Woolf was concerned that the prison system should be part of the system of justice and that prisons must be seen to be run justly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are principally concerned that the Bill would mean that prisoners were treated unjustly?
  Mr. Sheerman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for bringing me back to Lord Justice Woolf and the principles that underlie the arguments that we made in Committee. I was taking that for read and also saving it up for my Third Reading speech. However, I happily concede that point to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I am delighted that the Government have decided to accept amendment No. 7, which we moved in Committee. At that time we received a frosty response to it. Clause 1(2)(b), which the amendment removes, was the most worrying aspect of this badly drafted Bill. The wording was vague and the type of behaviour that it encompassed was so wide that it could have covered an enormous range of non-violent protest and disobedience. To take the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, it would have led to a feeling of injustice if it had been used for such offences. Tragically, it would have led to a reaction that could, ironically, have produced the very behaviour to which the Bill intends to put an end. Therefore, the words
  "collectively resist, impede or disobey any exercise of lawful authority in the prison in such circumstances as to make their conduct subversive of order in the prison."
  required no intent to overthrow lawful authority and could have covered a handful of prisoners protesting about prison food, refusing to work, or being involved in a peaceful protest about their innocence. I shall not labour the point but simply welcome the Government to the world of common sense.
  Amendment No. 8 seeks to remove clause 1(3), which provides that prisoners' intention and common purpose is to be inferred from their conduct. In other words, the mens rea or mental element of an offence does not have to be proved by the prosecution. I shall explain that provision under the watchful eye of my right hon. and learned Friend the Membet for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). In English law, it is usual for the prosecution to have to prove not only that the conduct took place but that the defendant intended it to occur or was at least reckless of the consequences. Under the Bill, there is no need to prove that a prisoner intended to overthrow lawful authority in a prison. That would be less important if the offence were limited to violence or the threat of violence, but the clause is still unsatisfactorily vague. It can still cover non-violent protest and, in those cases, the prisoners' intentions will be very important.
  The amendments hang together, and their coherence is important. Our argument in Committee was a coherent response to the Bill. We said that, if that subsection remains in the Bill, other parts must be changed to compensate for the earlier mistake. By arguing that the non-violent aspect must be removed from the Bill, we argue that subsequent amendments must also be accepted. I hope that the Minister of State will see the clarity of purpose in our tabling of those amendments and wishing to hold them together.
  842
  5.15 pm
  Although the problem would be less important if the offence were limited to violence or the threat of violence, the clause can still cover non-violent cases, in which case the prisoners' intention is not only important but it is vital that it should be known. Prisoners may simply be involved in a protest about conditions or alleged miscarriages of justice and the prosecution should have to prove that they intended to overthrow authority in the prison. To leave their intention to be inferred from their conduct is a recipe for miscarriages of justice.
  Those are the main amendments that we have tabled. We feel some satisfaction that the Government have given way on a fundamental part of the Bill to which we objected. That is a major victory for common sense. If the Government would now see that the three other amendments are consequential to that major concession, we shall improve the Bill, if not this afternoon, by the time it returns from another place.
  Sir John Farr: I wish to do what little I can to help my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to get the Bill on to the statute book. I was interested in the points raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I am confident that the Bill is not just window dressing.
  Gartree prison is in my constituency and most of the prisoners there are lifers and even multiple-lifers. The Bill has limited relevance to such prisoners. Whether two or six prisoners are assembled, whether they
  "use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison".
  or whether we accept amendment No. 7 has little relevance to life prisoners.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has always been frank about such matters and I hope that she will recognise that the Bill is tailor made to deal with specific problems. I do not see how life prisoners will be affected by any of the amendments. Will my right hon. Friend deal with that point? She may say that the Bill should not apply to prisons such as Gartree, in which case I recognise that there is a need elsewhere. It would have been improper for me to allow the amendments to go through without making that brief comment.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Government's concession in amendment No. 7 seems to call into question the need for the Bill. It changes the Bill fundamentally, and gave rise to considerable concern among prison governors about the damage that the Bill might inflict on prison discipline. To impose such draconian penalties on those who merely disobey or impede the exercise of lawful authority in the prison makes the Bill an obstacle rather than an assistance to good order.
  As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the fact that the Government have withdrawn that offensive and dangerous subsection is a triumph for common sense, but that raises the question of what is left in the Bill. The Bill relates to circumstances that are adequately covered by the existing law on conspiracy. I am at a loss to understand why public order offences, coupled with the charge of conspiracy, are not considered by the Government to be perfectly adequate to deal with outbreaks of violence or the threat of violence, which leads to the breakdown of order of the kind that was manifest at Strangeways.

  843
  I have been driven to the inevitable conclusion that, in introducing the Bill, the Government were seeking a cheap headline. That was their response to the disturbances at Brixton and Strangeways. The introduction of such little Bills is a form of boutique shopping.
  Mrs. RumboldWill the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many prisons that he has visited recently have just experienced disturbances?
  Mr. Maclennan: I have not recently visited a prison that had experienced a disturbance. However, just as the Secretary of State for Education and Science did not think it necessary to visit a single primary school during the first six months he was in office to be able to pronounce on education, I did not consider it necessary to visit a prison, particularly as prison governors are perfectly capable of expressing their views. In any event, their views are much better informed than mine, which are formed on the basis of a casual, short visit to a prison where a disturbance has taken place. Perhaps, unlike the Minister, I listen to what the prison governors say.
  On Second Reading, I specifically asked what representations had been made by the prison governors, but the Minister patently avoided answering me. She must know that the Bill is extremely unwelcome to the prison governors because they see it for what it is—a cheap attempt to grab the headlines in the tabloid press to suggest that the Government are doing something about prison disturbances.
  Mr. Soames: I must take exception to the hon. Gentleman's ludicrous line of argument. If he really believes in his case, he should make a much better fist of it. It is just possible that the prison governors, who are a very fine body of men, may be wrong. For many years, since the Prison Officers Association virtually took over the running of prisons, the prison governors have not been in a position to exert the authority that they should. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that prison governors are not in favour of the Bill is plainly not true.
  Mr. Maclennan: I took the trouble prior to Second Reading specifically to ask the Prison Governors Association whether it welcomed the Bill or had invited the Government to legislate. I was told that it neither welcomed the Bill nor had invited the Government to introduce it.
  It is not a matter of asking me for my view. The Government have the results of the inquiry into prison disturbances under Lord Justice Woolf and we have also had the most authoritative prison survey in a decade from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim. Not one line of that extensive report suggested that draconian measures of the kind contained in the Bill were necessary.
  I do not expect Conservative Members to pay the slightest attention to what Opposition Members say, but I expect them to pay attention to what their own chief inspector of prisons and their own inquiry into prisons said. There is not a whisper of support for the Bill, which I would call friendless, from any quarter that is knowledgeable about prisons. That is scarcely surprising. The Government have introduced an amendment to remove the offensive part of the Bill dealing with a non-violent situation. It is clear that there is nothing left in
  844
  the Bill that cannot adequately be dealt with by the present law on conspiracy or the public order legislation, which the Government recently went some way towards codifying.
  The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huddersfield refers to a pretty vacuous Bill, which is more print than substance. It is unlikely that the Bill will be used a great deal. One must accept that if troubles occur that lead to the possibility of lawful authority being overthrown, they might have come about as a result of the action of two prisoners, or of fewer than six. I cannot see the logic in the suggestion that six is the right number to include in the Bill. Whether a conspiracy, as I would call it, has the potential to overthrow lawful authority depends entirely on the resources that are available to the two people.
  Mr. Sheerman: The answer to the general principle of the amendment is the classic one that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". I chose the figure six as a negotiating ploy. My view on that number is not hard and fast, nor would I be bitterly ideological about it. I am entirely pragmatic. We chose the figure six—we could have chosen another. The hon. Gentleman was not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, but we had a general discussion and we chose that figure so that the Minister could go away and chew on it.
  Mr. Maclennan: I, too, have a pragmatic turn of mind. The hon. Gentleman may allow the point that two prisoners could theoretically overthrow lawful authority in a prison, if they are provided with sufficient means of force. Two prisoners overthrew lawful authority when they escaped from Brixton. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would not be proper to use the Bill in those circumstances. I do not think that it is necessary to use the Bill in those circumstances because there are common law and statutory law provisions which would allow those people to be prosecuted.
  If the Bill is to make any sense—it makes precious little —it does not make sense to pluck a number out of the air, be it six, four or eight prisoners. Two prisoners must be necessary to establish common purpose and a figure of two or more seems to be right.
  I agree with amendment No. 8 and I hope that the Government will accept it, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Huddersfield gave. I need not amplify them.
  Mr. John Greenway: I spoke on Second Reading and I followed the progress of the Bill in Committee, even though I was not a member of it. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". I shall vote for the Bill on Third Reading and I will not require any help from the Whips to persuade me to do so. There is a valid argument in favour of the Bill.
  I realise that on Second Reading much time was spent on the merits or otherwise of clause 1(2)(b). The Government are right to delete that paragraph because that makes the Government's intention much clearer. It was not the Government's intention to involve minor disturbances which perhaps would have been dealt with as disciplinary offences within the prison. We must recognise that some riots, such as that at Strangeways, were not spontaneous but the result of a detailed plan. Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for

  845
  Huddersfield, would seriously undermine the Government's intentions as envisaged in the Bill. The real problem—
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my argument, he will begin to understand.
  The point about the Bill is that it does not refer to riots or to violence. We should attempt to deal with the problem that, behind the scenes, as few as two prisoners with a great deal of influence on many other prisoners may conspire and incite others to commit an act of mutiny and riot, even though they themselves may not engage in violence or "use or threaten violence"—the words that the Opposition amendment would introduce. Those words would be superfluous at best and at worst would undermine the purpose of tackling those who might incite a mutiny in a prison. We are interested in not only the violence, the destruction and the act of rioting but the initial conspiracy and incitement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that the Government intend to deal with those elements.
  Clause 1 leaves us with a serious offence—the "overthrowing" of lawful authority, which I read as meaning a breakdown of control by prison staff over part or all of a prison. That is what happened at Strangeways; we have to tackle the planning of that sort of riot. That is why I believe that the Bill will strengthen the law on prison security. Opposition Members failed to point out the provisions of clause 2, which increase prison sentences for prison escapers as well.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: In Committee and in this debate, hon. Members have expressed their anxiety about the lack of definitions and lack of clarification of detail in the Bill. In Committee for instance, we discovered that a prisoner found guilty of taking part in a mutiny could expect 10 years' imprisonment or could be fined, although the fine is not specified. Ten more years to a lifer or a fine for a prisoner with no income is fairly meaningless.
  The same vague definition is used to describe the number of persons constituting a mutiny—"two or more". The Bill does not explain how that figure was arrived at. Reference to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" only enlightened me to the extent that the number of such persons must be plural. It refers to a body of people in revolt, and to soldiers and sailors, although not to other members of the armed forces. Regrettably, the dictionary, like the Bill, does not provide an adequate explanation, and I am left none the wiser. I am sure, however, that if approached the compliers of "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" would compromise on the numbers constituting a mutiny. If they would be so willing, why are not the Government? How can we possibly decide how many prisoners constitute a mutiny or a riot?
  Strangeways prison is in my constituency. As we all know, the biggest mutiny in British prison history took place there. The tabloid press informed us that more than 1,000 prisoners took part. Certainly, to judge by what I saw of its aftermath, two prisoners could not have done all that damage. How could we take all those prisoners to
  846
  court? If they all got 10 years, that would mean 10,000 more years of imprisonment. In any case, how could we prove how many were responsible for inciting the mutiny?
  I tend to agree with the Prison Officers Association that the Bill is irrelevant to attempts to end rioting. All in all, it will have little or no effect. I am not sure whether it extends to Operation Container, under which many prisoners are still held in prison cells in Greater Manchester—I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
  The amendments introduce the idea of a threat of
  violence. Such a threat was used at Strangeways and, to a lesser degree, in the copycat riots elsewhere in the wake of Strangeways. The amendments attempt to define what would constitute a mutiny, in the shape of a threat of violence for the purpose of overthrowing lawful order in a prison. That puts some meat on the bare bones of what the Government are trying to do.
  In Committee, the Minister of State claimed that prisoners might argue about, say, the colour of their bread. On 17 December, she said:
  "It may be argued that it is unreasonable to say that a prison mutiny begins when people sit down and refuse to eat food; it only starts when the prison officer has said, 'Look here, Fred and George, it is high time you went back to your cell' and Fred and George have said, 'No, we're not going back, we're going to sit here for the rest of the night' … Does violence always have to be involved? A prison may be disrupted by a refusal to conform with the authority that is essential to control a prison."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1991; c. 25.]
  Does arguing about the colour of bread or continuing to sit down constitute a mutiny? The Bill is vague on that point.
  By making such comments, the Minister does a disservice to the governors and men and women who run our prisons. There are daily protests about bad food, clothing and conditions, and governors and staff become expert at quelling such problems. They use subtlety and persuasion to cajole prisoners into conforming. There are peaks and troughs in prisoners' emotional behaviour and the staff learn to understand them. Trust is built up. If a governor thought that refusal to eat brown bread were tantamount to mutiny and called in prison staff to give evidence, what would happen to the trust between prisoner and officer?
  No governor would react in the way outlined by the Minister. The training and experience of governors allow them to find ways of dealing with tricky situations without reading the riot Act. It is our duty to protect staff from violence or the threat of violence, which is why I support the amendments.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 7.
  I begin by explaining why my right hon. Friend and I are more than ever convinced of the need for this piece of legislation. It is not only we who are committed to it; the previous Home Secretary also gave a commitment, as did the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice", in which we sought to reiterate our commitment. We have not yet received any comments from either the Prison Governors Association or the Prison Officers Association. We shall certainly consider such comments as soon as we receive them, but I repeat that we have had absolutely no comments on the Bill from any of the people running our prisons.

  847
  I suspect that, if there had been the strength of feeling against the Bill that Opposition Members suggested, those who are allegedly against the legislation would have submitted written arguments. The only evidence that I can adduce in this regard comes from a visit that I paid in the last couple of weeks to a prison that has only recently been built with taxpayers' money and at vast expense. That prison was wilfully and disgracefully damaged by young people on remand, who came from the same part of the country as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland). Both the Home Secretary and I found that behaviour thoroughly reprehensible, and it is in no way acceptable to the people of this country.
  I have absolutely no doubt that this is an essential piece of legislation, and that the removal from it of part of clause 1 will focus the issue. We seek to remove the objection which the hon. Member for Huddersfield had about the legislation at one point—that the provisions might "capture" those people who are not as violent or difficult as the young people at Moorland who were responsible during the Christmas period for the behaviour to which I have just referred.
  To that extent, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has welcomed our amendments. I did not expect him to be capable of resisting the usual "Yah-boo, I told you so" reaction. That is too much to expect from the hon. Member for Huddersfield and, as expected, he did not resist it. None the less, it is important that we have established a clear and convincing resolution.
  The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It will ensure that we have some redress against those people who think that they can act so disgracefully in our prison establishments, especially those that are newly built and in which we have emphasised the importance of making them more humane. We have heard enough about the importance of such establishments being humane. If we are to provide the humane establishments that I should like to see and to allow those who are responsible for running our prisons to have the establishment and discipline they need, we need this legislation on the statute book. The framework provided by the Bill is exceedingly important. I commend our amendments to the House.
  Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Lady has been most interesting. I accept her point and the kind words that she briefly passed my way. I am interested in the visit to Moorland to which she referred. Can she say, in a little detail, whether this legislation would have been used at Moorland in the recent disturbances?
  Mrs. Rumbold: It would be injudicious of me to say anything about such a matter, because that raises a question about legislation that is not yet on the statute book. I have every confidence that, as soon as the Bill is enacted, the type of behaviour that took place at Moorland, about which people across the country will have read, will be addressed. I refer to youngsters who wilfully destroyed public property that was provided at vast expense and to behaviour that very much disadvantaged the young people themselves.
  The Bill is therefore an essential piece of legislation. Even if it is not necessary to use the legislation, the very fact that it is on the statute book will prove an exceedingly important deterrent, because it clearly outlines the penalties that those who undertake such behaviour run the risk of incurring.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong for an hon. Member—let alone a Minister—to express a view on whether an offence should be charged in respect of the recent disturbances at Moorland or any other prison, given that clause 1(5) requires that no proceedings can be brought
  "except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  5.45 pm
  Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had not expected that I would necessarily be asked a sensible question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I was simply expressing a view that I know is widely held across the country about the exhibitions that we have witnessed not only recently but in previous years, when there was a disastrous series of demonstrations by inmates who showed scant regard for public property and for whether they were to be held responsible. Even if people are in prison, they have some responsibility for the way in which they conduct themselves.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is right. It is disgraceful that people committed to our prisons should then proceed to act in that way, whether at Moorland or at Strangeways. The Opposition are totally against such behaviour and the destruction of property. Such occurrences are dreadful, and we seek the most effective way of stopping them.
  However, we also want to stop the other dreadful things that have happened in prisons under this Government. I refer to the two prisoners who left Brixton, almost by courtesy and through the back door. Only today we have heard that a mafia boss who was sent to Springfield prison for five years and who has drug connections at the highest level has walked out of there. We want such things to be stopped and for the Government to do that effectively.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Bill. That is the clearest declaration that I have heard to the effect that the Opposition deplore such behaviour and believe that some form of legislation is necessary. This is what we propose, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in accepting the Bill and that he will vote in favour of it when the time comes.
  Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Labour party were to vote against the Bill, that would show what the people in the country already know—that Opposition Members are soft on law and order?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I refer hon. Members to the amendments that we are considering. This knockabout is all very amusing, but we are dealing with detailed amendments, which hon. Members should now address.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I turn now to amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Maclennan: I should be most grateful if the right hon. Lady could amplify Government amendment No. 7. When apparently answering the question about the circumstances in which the Bill might be used, the right hon. Lady said that she had seen malicious damage that had been carried out by prisoners on remand. Are we to

  849
  take it that malicious damage by prisoners on remand is to be considered an offence that may haul down the penalties for mutiny? If not, why did she even mention that? What is its relevance to the debate?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I do not think that the hon. Member knows a tremendous amount about what happens in our prison system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave a perfectly sensible answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  I turn now to amendment No. 4, on which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and I happen to agree. It relates to the minimum number of people who could be regarded as committing the specified crime. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Huddersfield later said that the number that he had selected—six—is arbitrary—
  Mr. Sheerman: It is a negotiating number.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I see that we are going to play with words. It is a negotiating number. The hon. Gentleman gave as his reason for this the fact that a man has to do what a man has to do.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked me why it was that Oppositions tabled amendments, and I said quite honestly that procedures make us behave in this way. We table amendments because that is the way to improve a Bill. That is what a man, or a woman, has to do.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot resist it, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I know that a woman has to do what a woman has to do. I can adduce one or two arguments for believing that it is not necessary for us to accept the amendment taking the figure above two.
  Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps the Minister should go away and think about it.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I did go away and think about it. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I recalled that, in Committee, I had said that I would go away and think about this and other related matters. I did indeed do so, and I decided that introducing amendment No. 7 would be infinitely preferable to accepting a change of number. I did this because it is possible to believe that an officer might have difficulty in quelling trouble created by more than two people. He would probably have difficulty in quelling six or even five. We have to choose a number, and, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made clear, going above the number of two does not make a great deal of sense. Therefore, I am not particularly attracted to the amendment.
  A second and more fundamental objection is that raising the minimum to six would make it a great deal harder to prove a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority, which is the crux of the matter. It is a stringent test to prove that two people had a common purpose, and an infinitely more stringent test to prove that a greater number than two had a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, this was a negotiating point, but I am afraid that I am not able to accept his offer of negotiation on this point.
  Amendment No. 5 not only deletes paragraph (b) but further restricts paragraph (a) by requiring the use or
  850
  threat of violence before a charge of mutiny may be brought. When we discussed this in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who sadly is not here now but who made a useful contribution at the beginning of the debate, was particularly concerned to limit the offence of mutiny to incidents involving the use or threat of violence.
  Let me say immediately that I am almost certain, given my knowledge of what happens in prisons, that there will be an element of violence in the serious disturbances at which the Bill is aimed. In resisting this amendment, I am taking into account the fact that it can be very difficult to prove particular acts of violence against particular inmates in a prison and behind locked doors.
  An incident may occur within a building where many inmates have barricaded themselves in. If, in spite of the evidence of widespread damage, it is not possible to prove the use or threat of violence against a particular inmate, this amendment would prevent any of those involved being successfully prosecuted for mutiny. I think that this is not what the hon. Member for Huddersfield intended.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was anxious to establish the point that we are seeking to ensure that this serious offence is caught in future. A further point is that the ringleaders in the disturbance—those who instigate or orchestrate it—may not themselves participate in acts of violence. Therefore, it is important that they, who are as culpable as others, are not let off the hook. It is for that reason that I wish to resist the amendment tabled by the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Central was particularly concerned about the number of prisoners held in Manchester in a container situation. There are now 200 people in the police cells in Operation Container. That is not satisfactory, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing everything we can to reduce the number, particularly as this is both expensive and an unsatisfactory solution, given that we feel strongly that the prison service should contain such prisoners.
  I understand only too well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). A prison such as Gartree contains lifers—people condemned to prison for a long time—and it is less likely that they will be impressed by an offence of prison mutiny that attracts a fairly long sentence. As he rightly says, those people are already in prison for a long time, so the deterrent effect of this measure may not be as great for such people. That is no reason for not introducing this measure so as to catch people on shorter sentences who commit an offence of this nature. I am sure that he will agree that it would be foolish not to pursue the Bill.
  Mr. Litherland: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I should like to finish, because I have to deal with amendment No. 8, which would remove clause 1(3).
  The first part of clause 1(3) provides that the intentions and common purposes of prisoners may be inferred from their conduct. This is similar to a provision in the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to the offence of riot. That too, as the House will be aware, requires a common purpose, and that common purpose may be inferred from conduct, as we propose here. It is not clear how prisoners' common purpose is to be proved if not by inferring it from their conduct. In the absence of an admission by the prisoners

  851
  Concerned, there may be no evidence of the formation of a plan to overthrow lawful authority, other than the conduct of the prisoners being consistent with such a plan. For that reason, we should be unhappy to see the first part of clause 1(3) removed.
  The second part of clause 1(3) provides that the conduct of different prisoners may take a different form. For example, prisoners may act together in one part of the prison to overthrow an officer, while in another case, others may be in different situations doing different things, but acting in unison. Clause 1(3) as it stands provides that, in both situations, a common purpose may be inferred from the conduct of the prisoners.
  I have looked carefully at the amendments tabled by the Opposition—Nos. 4, 5 and 8—but I cannot accept them. I hope that they will accept my reasoning and not press the amendments to a vote. However, it is rare for an amendment to he tabled in the name of both a Secretary of State and his Opposition shadow, as amendment No. 7 is tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Therefore, I commend that amendment to the House.
  Mr. Sheerman: I felt discomfort when I first saw this remarkable juxtaposition of the Home Secretary's name with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). We believe that this is a major success. We have persuaded the Government of the error of their ways, so they have accepted amendment No. 7. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and others who spoke about the amendments never referred to that fact in all the clone-like speeches that they made on Second Reading. There was no criticism in that debate, but now they accept an amendment that drives a coach and horses through the Bill that we debated on Second Reading.
  This has been an instructive process, because, after we asked and persuaded the Government, at the very last minute they are accepting a major amendment that changes the Bill's whole complexion. We shall push to Division amendment No. 5, but we are pleased to have converted the Government to common sense in respect of amendment No. 7, and we will not press the related amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 4.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'prison' to end of line 14 and insert
  'together use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison.'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 211.

  Division No. 57]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Bell, Stuart

  Alton, David

  Bellotti, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Benton, Joseph

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  852

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McCartney, Ian

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  McFall, John

  Cartwright, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McKelvey, William

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Clelland, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Crowther, Stan

  Marek, Dr John

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cummings, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Enright, Derek

  Morley, Elliot

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mullin, Chris

  Fatchett, Derek

  Murphy, Paul

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Brien, William

  Fearn, Ronald

  O'Hara, Edward

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Flannery, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Flynn, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foulkes, George

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fyfe, Maria

  Radice, Giles

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Redmond, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  George, Bruce

  Robertson, George

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Gordon, Mildred

  Rooker, Jeff

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Rooney, Terence

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hardy, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Skinner, Dennis

  Henderson, Doug

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Snape, Peter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Howells, Geraint

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Stephen, Nicol

  Hoyle, Doug

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ingram, Adam

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Trimble, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Vaz, Keith

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Walley, Joan

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Lamond, James

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Leighton, Ron

  Winnick, David

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lewis, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Litherland, Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkinson, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amos, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Ashby, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  853

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Irvine, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bowis, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knapman, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

  Knowles, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Knox, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Lang, Rt Hon lan

  Butler, Chris

  Lightbown, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Lord, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  McCrea, Rev William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Conway, Derek

  Maclean, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Couchman, James

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Devlin, Tim

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dicks, Terry

  Mills, lain

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dover, Den

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Eggar, Tim

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Evennett, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Farr, Sir John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Favell, Tony

  Mudd, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Needham, Richard

  Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Norris, Steve

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Franks, Cecil

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Freeman, Roger

  Page, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Fry, Peter

  Paisley, Rev lan

  Gale, Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Pawsey, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Portillo, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gorst, John

  Price, Sir David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Redwood, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Ground, Patrick

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hague, William

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Hannam, Sir John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hill, James

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Speller, Tony

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  854

  Stevens, Lewis

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Ward, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Watts, John

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'prison' to end of line 14.
  No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'paragraph (a) or (b) of,—[Mrs. Rumbold.]
  Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert 'or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
  '(4) In section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of assisting escape by conveying things into prisons) after the word "prisoner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "sends anything (by post or otherwise) into a prison or to a prisoner" and for the words "seven years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".
  (5) In section 30 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of rescue or assisting other prisoners) for the words "five years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".'.
  No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out 'and Wales only' and add ', Wales and Northern Ireland'.
  Mr. Trimble: On Second Reading, I asked why a measure that had been described as important and necessary, given the situation that had arisen in prisons in England and Wales, should not be extended to Northern Ireland, where the situation is equally serious. I asked the same question in Committee; on neither occasion was I given an answer.
  Since then an answer has arrived, in the form of a letter from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I received the letter yesterday afternoon; I believe that other hon. Members who served on the Committee with me received copies earlier this afternoon. I feel that I should put on record the reasons given by the Minister for not extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. The letter states:
  "When the issue was raised with us last June, Peter Brooke and John Belstead gave very careful consideration to the possibility of extension but concluded that, while there were arguments in favour of the introduction of a similar offence (among which was that of the difficulty of sustaining prosecutions for some offences committed during a mutiny or an escape attempt) extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland was neither necessary nor desirable.
  We have not, of course, faced a similar situation to that experienced in some English prisons in the early 1990s and Peter Brooke further believed that to introduce such a provision without that background would do nothing to enhance public support for the NI Prison Service and confidence in the strategy for the service which had been launched at that time.

  855
  I have noted your reference to the paramilitary campaign for segregation in HM Prison, Belfast and to the explosion which resulted in the deaths of two prisoners. Tragic as this last incident was I have to say that I do not accept that it could be considered as mutiny. But even if it could, those involved would almost certainly be charged with murder and other very serious offences for which the penalties exceed that provided for mutiny in the Prison Security Bill. Similarly, it is our view that Prison rules and the criminal law already provide adequate sanctions for the other offences which have been committed in the Prison."
  6.15 pm
  The Minister says that the murder of two prisoners in the Crumlin road prison was not mutiny. That may be true of the specific event, but the specific event marked the end of a series of events which undoubtedly involved an intention to overthrow lawful authority within the prison.
  I was interested to hear the Minister of State, Home Office mention recent disturbances in Moorland in a previous debate, and cite the scant regard for the public property that those disturbances involved as a reason for the legislation. Let me remind her that the campaign in Crumlin road prison also involved considerable destruction of public property.
  That prison may not yet have experienced a riot on the scale of the Strangeways disturbances; but the wrecking of the dining hall a few months ago is just one of many incidents there that demonstrate a clear disregard for public property. I had the doubtful pleasure of touring the Crumlin road prison last Monday, and I saw plenty of evidence of that. I do not think that we have been given sufficient ground for deeming Northern Ireland's circumstances to be different.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office made a significant concession in his letter when he referred to
  "the difficulty of sustaining prosecutions for some offences committed during a mutiny or an escape attempt".
  That is surely an argument in favour of extending the legislation. We are left with the contrary argument that
  "to intoduce such a provision … would do nothing to enhance public support for the … Prison Service."
  That is an argument based on expediency.
  The present truce in the Crumlin road prison will last until Lord Colville reports, but it will not endure beyond then. After the report, there is likely to be further trouble, perhaps on a substantial scale: there are plenty of scores still to be settled in that prison. During the current lull before the storm, one wonders what impression the Government's present conduct will make. They say that the Bill is necessary to deal with the situation in England; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says, "It may be necessary, but I am scared of the effect that it will have on some sections of opinion in Northern Ireland."
  What message will such a weak-kneed approach send to terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland? In the present circumstances, it is likely to lead them to believe that they can plan their mutinies with relative impunity.
  Amendment No. 2 deals with quite a narrow point. Clause 2 of the Bill plugs a gap in section 39 of the Prison Act 1952, to ensure that items sent to a prison by post—
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Or otherwise.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The aim is to ensure that items sent to a prison by post or otherwise will fall within the definition of assisting a prisoner to escape. That is clearly based on events in Brixton prison.
  856
  The point was made in Committee—notably by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)—that it was illogical that the Bill should not cover Northern Ireland, especially when one realises that a prisoner in London receiving a parcel from Belfast would be covered by the Bill but that the sender would not. Therefore, it is illogical to extend section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 while not making an equivalent extension to the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1953.
  The Northern Ireland Office said in its letter:
  "So far as the point about the posting into a prison of a parcel in relation to clause 2(1)(a) is concerned, the particular problem does not arise because of the wording of the parallel offence in section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953."
  I shall deal with that point in detail.
  Section 39 of the English Act states:
  "Any person who aids any prisoner in escaping or attempting to escape from a prison or who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys any thing into a prison or to a prisoner or places any thing anywhere outside a prison with a view to its coming into the possession of the prisoner, shall be guilty".
  The existing section refers to "conveying" and "placing". It is evident that the Home Office believed that conveying and placing did not include posting. That is a reasonable view, and it is why the Government are amending section 39 so that it includes posting.
  The Northern Ireland Office says that the different wording of section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act obviates the need for a similar amendment, but let us consider section 33 of that Act:
  "Any person who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys or throws or causes to be conveyed or thrown any thing into any prison or to a prisoner or places or throws or causes to be placed or thrown any thing anywhere inside or outside a prison with a view to its coming into the possession of a prisoner shall be guilty".
  The section of the Northern Ireland Act also refers to "conveys" as does section 39 of the English Act, but the only thing that it adds to section 39 is "throwing". Is throwing posting? I suppose that one throws things into letter boxes but throwing cannot be regarded as posting.
  Therefore, if section 39 of the English Act does not include posting, which seems reasonable, section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act certainly does not include posting. If section 39 is amended to make express reference to posting as the Government propose, any court considering that is bound to say that Parliament has clearly expressed the opinion that the words "conveying" and "placing" in section 39 do not include posting, and, if "conveying" and "placing" in section 39 do not include posting, then conveying, placing and throwing in section 33 cannot include posting. There is a clear gap, and the obvious way to remedy it is to accept amendment No. 2.
  I fear that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has been poorly advised about the wording of the legislation. When it is examined, it is clear that the Northern Ireland Office's argument does not hold water. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. If not, I shall divide the House, and I advise Conservative hon. Members that, if they vote against the amendment, they will be voting against the clause in the Bill.
  Sir John Farr: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and congratulate him on his initiative and on his perseverance. As he said, he raised this issue—very ably—in Committee, and, like me, on Second Reading.

  857
  For many years, there has been an unfortunate habit, which seems to be dying, of having separate legislation for the mainland, thus separating the needs of Northern Ireland, instead of dealing with them all under United Kingdom legislation. We have increasingly given way to the temptation to have legislation that deals only with Great Britain.
  As hon. Members will be aware, this is not the first time that matters of such gravity have been discussed in relation to Northern Ireland. I have heard hon. Members of all parties repeat that there are many reasons why we should move towards legislation covering the whole of the United Kingdom—in other words, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  One reason is the common-sense reason which, I have found, never appeals to Governments. Apart from that reason, there was a case last summer which involved trainers sent in a parcel from Belfast to a London prison —Wandsworth, I think. Unbelievably, the parcel contained a firearm which was used seriously to injure a prison officer. Even more importantly, it enabled two vicious IRA killers to escape. If only common sense had applied in the past. I am not saying that it would have affected that incident but I should have thought that, faced with that glaring example, some of my hon. Friends, although they may have been reluctant to accept it, would have seen the common-sense solution which is crying out to be adopted in the Bill.
  The three amendments which go together are a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. Nevertheless, if we can persuade the Government to accept them as a group, it would make it more difficult for anyone attempting to send a parcel of, for example, trainers from Belfast to the mainland to do so without being caught, because the legislation would be tighter.
  As I said, the hon. Member for Upper Bann and I raised the issue on Second Reading and in Committee. I also had access—I dare say that the hon. Gentleman had similar access—to the Home Office. I asked how we could ensure that the common-sense amendments were accepted. The advice that I received through the official channels was that getting sensible amendments accepted in this case—I am talking about United Kingdom legislation, not merely Great Britain or Northern Ireland legislation—had nothing to do with the Home Secretary, but apparently the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland held a different view.
  I was advised by the authorities to table questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which I have done unsucessfully. Since the introduction of the Bill, I have not been reached in the ballot on Northern Ireland questions. The written replies that I received are wholly ineffective, because they say that the suggestion is not appropriate.
  I reinforce what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said. It is not a case of treating Northern Ireland citizens as second-class citizens or anything so silly, but for years some of us have been saying that the more we can associate mainland legislation with United Kingdom legislation—including Northern Ireland—the more sensible it is likely to be in the first place. That applies to this Bill, which would be more likely to be generally acceptable to the
  858
  public if the amendment were adopted. I have pleasure in supporting what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Dickens: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, as hon. Members will want to hear the Minister's reply. However, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on the way in which he moved this amendment. I suspect that the Minister of State has a duty to see that the Bill goes through unamended, but I have tremendous sympathy for the Northern Ireland Members who have brought this amendment forward.
  Those who say that a few people in Northern Ireland will be upset if we increase the sentence from seven years to 10 for the purpose of achieving even-handedness vis-a-vis England and Wales do not have a very good argument. The people of Northern Ireland have had their hearts torn out. They must have cried a million tears. The graveyards are full. I do not want to be too emotional, but I must say that what is proposed would not cause any great alarm. I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland would be too fussy about it. In fact, they would be very pleased indeed if the British Parliament—they are as British as we are—were to demonstrate even-handedness between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. That would be a sensible course of action.
  However, the Minister of State replying to this debate is not a Northern Ireland Minister and may therefore be in a difficult position. That I understand, but it would be very nice if she were to go at least as far as to say that the matter will be given further very serious consideration, with a view to achieving even handedness. If such an assurance were given, the Northern Ireland Members might consider not forcing the matter to a Division.
  I have sympathy with their argument. I do not see the situation from the point of view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as expressed in the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on tabling such a sensible and reasonable amendment, which would not upset many people in Northern Ireland and would please most of them.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has reiterated his view that the provisions of this Bill should apply to establishments in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as they are intended to apply to establishments in England and Wales. I was very interested in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). I am quite sure that those contributions, as well as that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, will be read carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has already considered the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman, and his view, which I share, is that the provisions of the Bill should not extend to Northern Ireland.
  As the hon. Member for Upper Bann has explained, this Bill dealing with the situation in England and Wales was introduced as a direct response to the disturbances that we witnessed in 1990 and to the more recent ones at Moorland and Brinsford at the end of last year. For whatever reason, a number of prisoners in England and

  859
  Wales have been determined—and have demonstrated their determination—to cause very great destruction. The Bill is aimed directly at such behaviour.
  We heard that the hon. Member for Upper Bann had recently visited Her Majesty's prison, Belfast and had seen disturbances there. He said that he had seen evidence of behaviour similar to that which we have witnessed in prisons in this country. I am informed that the disturbances and incidents that took place in Belfast prison consisted of assaults, either by individual prisoners or by small groups of prisoners, on other prisoners or on staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not accept that these incidents constitute mutiny or have the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have not made a speech, but, in the main, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). The House will understand my hon. Friend's point. The assumption seems to be that, as these events occurred in Great Britain, there is a need for this law in Great Britain but that, as such events have not yet occurred in Northern Ireland, there is not yet a need for it in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the courtesy that the Minister of State has shown to the House, but I have to say that it would make sense if the Government were to reconsider this matter before the Bill is debated in another place. The introduction of a provision of this sort should not come after a mutiny.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am well aware of the constitutional point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) sensibly makes. I am sure he will understand that there has been considerable consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the report of this debate will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
  However, my right hon. Friend advises me that a situation similar to the current situation in this country —which is the reason for our introduction of this legislation—does not exist in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will say that there have been some serious incidents in Northern Ireland, but, in the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there is no evidence that prisons there are in a state of mutiny, as some of ours undoubtedly have been in the past two years.
  I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann that, while such a situation has not arisen, it could arise in the future, however, at present there is no need to introduce in Northern Ireland a criminal offence of mutiny. To do so without a background of disturbances would apparently only damage the community's confidence in the prison system in the Province.
  Mutiny is already a disciplinary offence under the Northern Ireland prison rules, and carries a maximum penalty of 180 days' loss of remission, or the equivalent of a 12-month sentence. That is a penalty to which we do not have access in respect of the prisons in England and Wales.
  With regard to escape-related offences, there are already many differences between the Northern Ireland legislation and the legislation that applies in England and Wales. Some offences under the Northern Ireland prisons legislation do not appear in the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
  Sir Alan Glyn: If this is a united Kingdom, the law in Northern Ireland should be the same as that in England and Wales, whatever the consequences. I realise that there are reasons for the approach that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is adopting, but I hope that she will convey the feelings of hon. Members, including many on the Government side, to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Again, I fully understand the constitutional point that my hon. Friend makes, but, in respect of legislation and administration, there are a number of differences between Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. These are accepted and respected on all sides of the House. There are many differences in respect of penalties. For example, in England and Wales, offences of escape, rescue and prison breach are dealt with under common law, and there is therefore no maximum penalty. In Northern Ireland, those are statutory offences, carrying fixed maximum penalties of three, seven and seven years respectively. It would not be right in this Bill to make piecemeal amendments to the Northern Ireland legislation.
  If amendment No. 2 were accepted, the hon. Member for Upper Bann would have created a far greater and odder discrepancy in sentencing powers that those of which he complains today. There would be a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for assisting the escape of a prisoner serving a term of less than life imprisonment but a maximum of only seven years for assisting the escape of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment. That cannot be sensible.
  I note the views of the hon. Member for Upper Bann on amendment No. 2. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not convinced that such an amendment is needed to make sending a gun into a prison in Northern Ireland by post an offence. Section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953, which is different from legislation on the comparable offence in England and Wales, uses the words:
  "Any person who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys or throws or causes to be conveyed".
  We believe that "causes to be conveyed" are the essential and relevant words which include the matter of posting. We are therefore not convinced that there is a need to bring the penalties for escape-related offences in Northern Ireland in line with the proposed new penalties in England and Wales. We do not consider that amendment No. 2 is necessary. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this instance. With respect, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank Conservative Members who have spoken in support of the amendments, which I very much appreciate. Their support for the amendments is a recognition that the amendments are sensible. I am sorry that the Minister has had to speak from a brief with which the Northern Ireland Office has supplied her. Her suggestion that the circumstances at Her Majesty's prison in Crumlin road do not fall within the concept of prison mutiny is unsustainable. I wish that there was more time available to elaborate on that point. The advice that the Minister has received from the Northern Ireland Office leaves one with the conviction that the Northern Ireland Office is not in Belfast, but in cloud cuckoo land.

  861
  The Minister will recall that I set out in detail the terms of section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 and of section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. I clearly demonstrated the close similarity between the two. The Northern Ireland Office claims that section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act is different. I was amused to hear that the phrase that the Northern Ireland Office picks on as different is the phrase "causes to be conveyed". It says that "conveyed" in the Northern Ireland legislation includes posting. If that is so, what does the Northern Ireland Office say about the word "conveys" in the English legislation? In the view of the Home Office, that clearly does not include posting, because it would not otherwise have included clause 2 in the Bill. The argument does not hold water.
  I intend to press amendment No. 2 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 1.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  OFFENCES RELATING TO ESCAPE
  Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
  '(4) In section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of assisting escape by conveying things into prisons) after the word "prisoner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "sends anything (by post or otherwise) into a prison or to a prisoner" and for the words "seven years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".
  (5) In section 30 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of rescue or assisting other prisoners) for the words "five years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".'. — [Mr. Trimble.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 211.

  Division No. 58]

  [6.42 pm

  AYES

  Farr, Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McCrea, Rev William

  Mr. James Molyneaux and

  Paisley, Rev lan

  Mr. Roy Beggs.

  Trimble, David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alton, David

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amos, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellotti, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  862

  Cran, James

  Miller, Sir Hal

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

  Mills, lain

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Day, Stephen

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Devlin, Tim

  Moate, Roger

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Dicks, Terry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Dover, Den

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Evennett, David

  Mudd, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Needham, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Norris, Steve

  Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Flynn, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Paice, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forth, Eric

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Pawsey, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Freeman, Roger

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  French, Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gill, Christopher

  Price, Sir David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Raffan, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Redwood, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Gorst, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Gregory, Conal

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Ground, Patrick

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hague, William

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hayward, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Speller, Tony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Howells, Geraint

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Stephen, Nicol

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Knapman, Roger

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Knowles, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knox, David

  Thorne, Neil

  Lang, Rt Hon lan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lightbown, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Trippier, David

  Lord, Michael

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Maclean, David

  Watts, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wheeler, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whitney, Ray

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mans, Keith

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mates, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Wilshire, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  863

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.53 pm
  Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I want to reiterate the Government's conviction that this particular Bill is an essential piece of legislation, drafted well now, with the amendment that we have accepted, and that it will bring to the prison system a useful deterrent against those people who might think it possible to have some form of disruption leading to the kind of destruction of our prisons that we have seen in recent years.
  This is unacceptable. We wish to have the climate in our prisons in which the reforms that we plan to introduce as the result of our White Paper in response to Lord Justice Woolf's wise report will be possible, without the kind of disruption that we have seen in the past.
  It is for that reason that I commend the Bill, as amended, to the House.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: We have argued this Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Third Reading in a positive manner. We have improved the Bill; with the Government's acceptance of a major amendment, we have seen the Bill considerably changed, and we will not be voting against it on Third Reading. We said on Second Reading that, if major amendments were made, we would not vote against the Bill, and we keep that pledge, but I must say, in the brief time allowed me, that the Bill is still disappointing.
  864
  Britain's penal system is falling about the Government's ears. When any system is under stress, there are symptoms. Anyone who looks at the prison system, as Lord Justice Harry Woolf did when he considered the Strangeways and other related riots, to which this Bill is a response, will see several symptoms. One is the sort of riot and mayhem that we saw at Strangeways. Another is the tragic suicides increasingly occurring in young offenders' institutions and in prisons—suicides not only of inmates but also of prison officers. Bad industrial relations are also a symptom of a system under stress.
  We also see the ghastly symptom of governors and prison officers unable to keep the security of our prisons intact. It is a sad day when we discover that, for seven weeks, the Home Secretary has failed to tell the House that a major criminal, with a record not only of drug trafficking but also of trying to defraud British Aerospace of £40 million, has walked out of one of Her Majesty's prisons. There has been no statement to the House, no reference to it in this place by the Government. It follows on the heels of the apparently simple and easy escape of the two suspected IRA terrorists from Brixton prison.
  I mention the symptoms of stress in order to point out that our penal system is in grave disorder. Lord Justice Woolf framed his recommendations to make sure that there was a serious legislative input in the House to reform the prison system. We have consistently argued that this legislation, which we will not oppose in its modified form, dwells on the surface of things and fails to get to the heart of what is wrong with our penal system. It will need an incoming Labour Government to put it right and to put law and order at the top of the agenda.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Uncertificated Securities
6.59 pm
The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the draft Uncertificated Securities regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19 December, be approved.
Hon. Members who are interested in the subject will no doubt have seen the draft regulations, which have been available in the Vote Office and will know that at the back of the document is to be found a full summary and explanatory note setting out the basis of the TAURUS system and what the Government propose to do to ensure that that system is properly regulated in the interests of shareholders.
The Government have paid particular attention to the lot of the smaller shareholder. We were extremely concerned that the small shareholder should be able to participate in a debate within his company and that he should be able to vote on whether the company should join the AURUS system or not. We were especially concerned that the small shareholder would not have to maintain his shareholding, if he did not wish to do so, through a commercial controller who might charge him fees for the privilege of maintaining his holding.
We therefore introduced the idea of the—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

King's Cross Railways Bill (By Order)
As amended, further considered.
Clause 7

  PASSENGER CONCOURSE BUILDING AT KING'S CROSS AND ST. PANCRAS MAIN LINE STATIONS
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 25, leave out clause 7.
  Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, under the headline "Chunnel doubts grow over King's Cross", appeared a quotation from a letter signed by the Minister for Public Transport on 20 January:
  "We do not know at this stage whether this station"—King's Cross—
  "will meet the Government's investment criteria. If it does not then, even if the Bill"—
  the Bill before us—
  "is enacted, British Rail will not be allowed"
  to proceed with the project.
  I find it surprising that the Minister should send such a letter, given that he has never informed hon. Members of the position. Why was the information circulated in a letter to protesters, rather than raised in the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to know what is the point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman seems to be addressing his comments to the Minister. I can deal only with points of order.
  Mr. Snape: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me come to the point. What is the point of our debating at great length the King's Cross Railways Bill if the Minister in charge of that Bill is writing to outside organisations saying that if the station—the subject of that Bill—is not viable, it will not be built? Why are we wasting our time in those circumstances?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order. I can only say that the amendments that have been selected are in order; we should now proceed with them.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The amendment would leave out clause 7 of the Bill. In the constructive spirit in which I approached the Bill when we discussed two new clauses in our previous debate, I have tabled the amendment in an attempt to make the Bill a better Bill, and not to frustrate the entire project. I hope, therefore, that it will receive careful consideration.
  The amendment would remove the clause that seeks to give outline planning consent for the concourse building between St. Pancras and King's Cross stations. There are a number of reasons for so doing. The first, and probably the most important, is that the House should be wary in principle of legislating, through the private Bill procedure, to facilitate planning permissions. There are plenty of methods available to British Rail and other developers to seek planning consent—especially outline planning consent—for their proposals. The use of the private Bill procedure to obtain planning permission is something of which the House should be sceptical.

  867
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who is just leaving the Chamber and who for so long chaired the Committee that considered the Bill, will recognise the importance of that point. The Committee commented in its report on the fact that, in certain respects, British Rail was, effectively, seeking planning permission. Commenting on what was then clause 19, the Committee said, in paragraph 48 of its special report:
  "We have unanimously decided to delete clause 19 from the Bill."
  Clause 19 was the clause that would have overidden listed buildings provisions in respect of the listed buildings on the site in question.
  The Committee said that it proposed to delete the
  clause for two reasons, the first of which is important:
  "the exemption from normal planning procedures conferred by the clause would have resulted in the function of planning authority devolving upon Parliament and, in practice, upon this Committee."
  It is clear that the Committee was most unhappy about the concept of that function devolving on Parliament through the private Bills procedure. Yet that is precisely what the inclusion of clause 7 entails. As I said, the clause gives outline planning consent for the new concourse building and asks the House, in effect, to act as a planning committee. That stands against the approach of the Committee.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is illustrating the main problem identified by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which I was a member. It is true that organisations have used—and still use—the private Bill procedure as a way of circumventing normal planning operations and requirements within local authority areas. The House should be careful about allowing itself to be used by organisations to enable them to avoid going through the normal planning consultation process—particularly public inquiries. That is one of the big dangers of the private Bill procedure. British Rail is clearly using and exploiting the House, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and other hon. Members did sterling work on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which produced a voluminous report, very little of which has been implemented. I shall not refer to it in detail, because I do not wish to detain the House.
  Suffice it to say that the trend identified by the Joint Committee and in the Transport and Works Bill, currently before the House is away from the concept of organisations using private Bills to get planning permission. The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Transport and Works Bill states that the Bill "provides for amendments of legislation dealing with the safety of railway and similar systems, including footpaths crossing them, so as to avoid powers having to be sought by special enactment and implements recommendations of the Fennell inquiry into the King's Cross Underground Station fire".
  Quite clearly, the way in which the Government are moving in putting this Bill through the House during this Session, the way the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure was thinking and the views that many hon. Members have expressed in debate and discussion over the past couple of years indicate that the trend of thinking is moving away from the obtaining of planning permission, where normal planning procedures are possible, by the somewhat different means of getting a private Bill through
  868
  the House, where the proper scrutiny which a planning committee can give to an application cannot, by definition, be given. That is the first reason why this amendment should be considered.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Am I right in assuming that, because this Bill has been before the House for the past three years, the planning procedures now dictate that there is a change of attitude to planning applications, and that if this application had been made within the past six months or so the whole matter would have been considered differently? Is it not correct that to use the analogy that what happened with the former planning procedure would not happen now is somewhat misleading for the House?
  Mr. Smith: Not at all, because the situation is that this Bill was lodged in the House in November 1988, when it contained clause 7, which is the subject of the amendment before us. Six months later, British Rail and London Regeneration Consortium, the proposed private developers for the King's Cross railway lands, jointly lodged two planning applications for the railway lands site.
  The first of those planning applications was what one might call a master plan for the entirety of the railway lands site—Norman Foster's concept of an egg-shaped park with a great wall of offices round it. The second planning application, however, was specifically for the concourse building which British Rail is proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross stations.
  So British Rail is revealing precisely what it was up to by its actions at that time. It was including in this Bill the seeking of outline planning permission for the concourse building; yet, six months later, it submitted an outline planning application to the normal planning authority for the same concourse building.
  If that planning procedure in precisely the normal way is open to British Rail—and it clearly is something that British Rail recognises, because it put a planning application in—it should not be seeking special, separate powers through the private Bill procedure effectively to bypass the planning application which it has already submitted.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend obviously knows the difference between outline and detailed planning permission. For example, I could seek detailed planning permission at Westminster to turn Buckingham palace into a home for people who are sleeping rough on the streets, to turn it into a hostel for the homeless. I think that would be a very good use to which to put Buckingham palace. I would probably get outline permission, but I doubt very much, knowing the political nature of Westminster corporation, that it would give me detailed planning permission. What British Rail has done is to put the application in to Camden as a blind, and now it is trying to use the House and substitute Camden's detailed planning consent.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has a good basic point, because I am sure that British Rail is trying to navigate past the normal planning procedures. However, the effect of clause 7 would be to give outline permission rather than detailed permission. It would still have to go ahead with

  869
  the normal detailed planning permission application. If we allowed clause 7 to speed its way on to the statute book, we would be truncating the outline stage of the procedure.
  It is worth asking why British Rail might be doing this, because it is such self-evident sharp practice on its part to seek to get round the normal planning procedures. I can only think that it is because of the existence of the Great Northern hotel. The House will be aware that the Great Northern hotel lies precisely between King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. British Rail proposes the demolition of the Great Northern hotel, which it would replace by a supposedly spanking new concourse between the two.
  British Rail had originally hoped that it would get away with doing that through the inclusion of the old clause 19 in the original Bill. The Committee saw British Rail off on that point, I am delighted to say, because it deleted clause 19 from the Bill.
  It is worth refreshing our minds on what the Committee said about the Great Northern hotel. It said, in paragraph 53:
  "By common consent, the most significant of the listed buildings affected by the King's Cross proposals is the Great Northern hotel, designed by Lewis Cubitt, the architect of King's Cross station, to which it served as an adjunct. The hotel opened in 1854 and has been in use continuously since then. However, it stands on the site of the intended new passenger concourse, and British Rail therefore proposes its demolition."
  The Committee went on to say, referring to Norman Foster, the architect of the proposed new passenger concourse building:
  "Mr. Foster's designs are striking and may provide the basis for an attractive building. On the other hand, the Great Northern hotel is not only an agreeable mid-Victorian building which, other things being equal, it would be a pity to lose, but it is also an important part of Britain's railway heritage."
  That was the verdict of the Committee on the Bill. It very clearly placed substantial value on the existence and appearance of the Great Northern hotel. The Victorian Society has also expressed very great concern about the possibility of the hotel being demolished.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is probably coming on to the point that I wanted to put to him. This is a hotel of some architectural distinction and some historical connections. I believe that Mr. Gladstone often used the hotel, for reasons that I do not think that I can go into at the moment. In the circumstances, the House would be most unwise to allow British Rail to demolish that wonderful building. Who knows, there might be another Mr. Gladstone sitting in this Chamber who might wish to use that wonderful hotel similarly in the future.
  Mr. Smith: I certainly hope that my hon. Friend is not casting aspersions on the predilections of hon. Members of the present-day House. I suspect that he is absolutely right about the frequency with which many eminent Victorians may well have used the services of the Great Northern hotel.
  The Victorian Society in a memorandum to myself said:
  "The Victorian Society has always considered the survival of the Great Northern Hotel a matter of crucial importance. In 1984, when British Rail was proposing its demolition and replacement with an office block"—
  hon. Members should note that British Rail has been trying to get rid of the hotel for some time; all the talk
  870
  about how wonderful the great new Norman Foster creation will be sits oddly beside the original proposals of only eight years ago for the site—
  "we urged the DoE to list it as an historic building, which the DoE agreed to do.
  "The Society considers the Great Northern Hotel a building of fine classical design standing at the heart of what is arguably the most important complex of railway buildings in this country. Those seeking its demolition have stated that, as a building, it is not of the same stature as either of the great stations. This is self evidently true but does not diminish the importance of the hotel; it merely reflects the hierarchical manner in which the Victorians viewed architectural style—the hotel was not intended to rival the station, it is a subsidiary building and was designed as such."
  The Victorian Society goes on to point out that, despite being a subsidiary building, it is a very fine building. The society's conclusion is:
  "The Great Northern Hotel is a building of very considerable architectural and historical significance. Only if there were overriding reasons for its demolition—which the evidence given to the Select Committee of Members of Parliament indicated was not the case—could such action be justified."
  That memorandum set the case out clearly. If British Rail insists that it wants to go ahead with the inclusion of clause 7 in the Bill, with the creation of the new passenger concourse and with the overriding of the existing normal planning procedures, the danger is that that will intensify the pressure for the demolition of a very fine listed building in the Great Northern hotel. That, I suspect, is one of the real reasons behind what British Rail is up to in including the clause in the Bill.
  Mr. O'Brien: I want to develop the issue of the overriding decision. I support totally the preservation of historic buildings which have played a major part in the life style of the nation. But when we consider all the alternatives, as a Member serving a northern constituency, I feel that the preservation of the Great Northern hotel must be weighed against the benefits and advantages of enabling the northern part of the country to use the channel tunnel. I fear that the retention of the hotel would deny a large part of the country that opportunity. That is what we are defending. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that issue. There should be some way of assessing the advantages of retaining the hotel or the benefits if the hotel site were used for the link between the channel tunnel and the northern counties. The matter must be considered by every hon. Member and by people outside the House.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to raise the point. However, he is under a misapprehension. There is no specific need for British Rail to demolish the Great Northern hotel in order to get the links which it requires from a new international station at King's Cross through to the north. The only reason for British Rail to demolish the hotel and to retain clause 7 is to have the fancy new Norman Foster canopy linking King's Cross and St. Pancras. While I sympathise entirely with my hon. Friend's wish to ensure that links are available from King's Cross to the north, clause 7 is not essential for that purpose.
  Mr. Gary Waller: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious that the House should not be misled. He quoted extensively from the Committee's comments on clause 19, which is no longer part of the Bill. Will he make it clear to the House that listed building consent for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel, if that were

  871
  required, is still needed and would not be overridden by anything in the Bill as it stands? Will he also make it clear that an application has already been submitted to Camden council for outline planning permission for the concourse and that detailed planning permission would also be required? Therefore, the requirements of planning consent are not overridden by anything in the Bill, but would be considered later.
  Mr. Smith: In the second part of what he said, the hon. Gentleman has made precisely the case for passing the amendment. He admitted that British Rail has submitted an outline planning application to Camden council. It is still under consideration. There is no need for British Rail to have clause 7 in order effectively to override that planning consent.
  I should like also to tackle the hon. Gentleman on hjis first point. I suspect that he was being a little disingenuous about it. Of course, there will still be a requirement to get listed building consent for the demolition of the hotel. The Committee, thank goodness, ensured by the deletion of clause 19 of the original Bill that listed building consent will have to be sought. If the House were to agree to clause 7, that would lead to intense pressure of any future public local inquiry to ensure that listed building consent would be given for the demolition of the hotel for the creation of a new concourse. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that having the listed building procedure as a requirement is ultimate protection, I must ask him to think again.
  Once the House has spoken, by including clause 7 in the Bill, it will be very difficult to use any of the other planning procedures in existence to protect the Great Northern hotel. That is the danger. That is why I hope that the amendment will be carried and that clause 7 will be deleted from the Bill. Deletion of the clause would do no damage to possible links from King's Cross to the north, but it would ensure that a fine Victorian building was preserved. It would also enshrine in law the principle that the House does not want to act as a local planning authority. That is up to the normal planning procedures, not to legislation of the House.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Waller: I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) because the promoters cannot accept the amendment. It would effectively remove from the Bill the power to construct a concourse building serving the King's Cross and St. Pancras mainline stations.
  The House will be aware that the proposed concourse building, together with the link between Pancras road, which is included in works 16 and 17, will provide a single interchange combining the St. Pancras and King's Cross stations, the proposed low-level station and the London underground stations. Hon. Members who use the existing King's Cross concourse regularly will be aware that it is unsatisfactory from both a functional and an aesthetic point of view. In any event, it will have to be replaced by the end of 1996, when the existing planning permission expires.
  The facade of King's Cross station has rarely been seen as it was intended by Cubitt. Buildings were erected soon after the station's construction and, more recently, the existing concourse was erected. That would have to be demolished by 1996 if the existing temporary planning permission was not extended. One of the virtues of the
  872
  proposals before the House is that, for the first time, that superb grade 1 listed station will be seen as originally intended by the architect.
  The British Railways Board has applied to the London borough of Camden for outline planning permission to construct the new passenger concourse building at above-street level. But the construction must also be authorised by an Act of Parliament—a fact that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may have forgotten. Naturally, the new concourse building will incorporate all the features demanded by long-distance inter-city and international travellers.
  Mr. Smith: I am not sure whether I caught exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. If British Rail wishes to carry out railway work, it must seek the authority of the House. If, however, it wants to develop a piece of property—a concourse building linking one station to another without involving railway work is simply the development of a piece of property—it does not require the authority of the House to do so but can proceed through normal planning procedures.
  Mr. Waller: I said that the works incorporated at below-ground level in the concourse building are regarded as railway works, and therefore an Act of Parliament is required before they can go ahead. It is correct to say that the new passenger concourse building at above-street level requires outline planning permission, which is why an application has been made to Camden council.
  Mr. Smith: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman give us a commitment that British Rail will withdraw the above-street level works provisions from the Bill? On the hon. Gentleman's admission, British Rail does not require parliamentary authority to carry out those works.
  Mr. Waller: I am advised that it is necessary for the authorisation to be included in the Act of Parliament, which is why it has been included in it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: So that the House understands fully what it is being asked to do, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever may go on underground, and therefore be required to come before the House, the proposal for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will not be required to come before the House? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the Bill goes through, the Great Northern hotel will go?
  Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman said that in his earlier intervention, but he is incorrect. I am glad to be able to make it clear that the deletion of clause 19 will not override the requirement for listed building consent.
  The facilities in the new concourse will be of a different order from those currently enjoyed by long-distance travellers and those using Network SouthEast services. Apart from the functional need for efficient station premises for public transport, it is difficult to have a visually satisfactory new concourse building between the splendid grade 1 listed King's Cross and St. Pancras train sheds and station buildings without demolishing the Great Northern hotel.
  It was said a few moments ago and in Committee that, other things being equal, it would be a pity to lose the Great Northern hotel. I agree with that because the hotel is a grade 2 listed building, albeit not of the same quality as its neighbours. However, the Norman Foster building

  873
  that British Rail proposes to build does justice to the grade 1 listed buildings on either side of it. It has all the makings of a building that will do credit to British Rail and its architect, as well as to the two important stations on either side of it.
  British Rail, to its credit, recently modified buildings. On Embankment place, just down the river from Charing Cross, is a fine building.
  Mr. Banks indicated assent.
  Mr. Waller: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman concurs with that. In the future, that modern building may be regarded in the same way as we currently regard the existing King's Cross station. Similarly, the new station at Cannon Street has won a civic trust award, and the new buildings at Liverpool Street are also well regarded. I place the proposed new concourse building at King's Cross and St. Pancras in exactly that category.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is right. The developments that he mentioned are notable, sympathetic and much admired. The point is that the development at Liverpool Street has managed to embody so much of the original structure. How much of the grade 2 listed Great Northern hotel will be embodied within Norman Foster's design? If the hon. Gentleman can show us that that will happen, the opposition to demolition or alteration might be assuaged, but at present it seems to be a question of the total demolition of the hotel. Even the building of Norman Foster, whom I admire greatly—I am always drinking his lager—will not be an adequate replacement for that wonderful grade 2 listed building.
  Mr. Waller: If it were possible to retain the existing building, also by Cubitt, that would be a bonus. It is clear from the proposals for the Norman Foster concourse that it is a different kind of building and it would not be compatible with retaining the Great Northern hotel. I believe that other things are not equal. We would lose a grade 2 listed building that is by no means outstanding and would replace it with a modern building of the highest quality.
  I wish to confirm that what I said a few minutes ago is correct. Parliamentary powers are needed under clause 7, regardless of whether outline planning has been applied for. Such authority is needed to authorise interference with highways and statutory undertakers' apparatus. Those are both necessary consequences of the construction of a concourse building. Powers are also needed to confer immunity from action causing nuisance arising from the railway operation in and around the building. In other words, the reservations of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who suggested that we were overriding planning permission, either outlined or detailed, and overriding the requirement for listed building consent, have been shown to be without foundation.
  Those of us who regularly use King's Cross and St. Pancras want to be able to look forward to the provision of new facilities that are much better than those currently experienced by travellers. However, that will not be possible given the constraints posed by the listed building, which, in any case, requires consent if it is to be demolished. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I do not wish to detain the House long, but I fear that it will be a long night. I am against the amendment, although I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is looking after his constituents.
  To those of us from the north of England, there is a choice between the Great Northern hotel and the great north of England. I am afraid that the great north of England must win.
  Mr. Chris Smith: If the choice posed were between the needs of the north and the existence of the Great Northern hotel, devoted as I am to the virtues of that hotel, I would entirely agree that the needs of the north of England must come first. But that is not the choice in front of us. The choice is not between protecting the interests of the north of England and saving the Great Northern hotel. The choice is between protecting the interests of the north and not saving the hotel. In that case, there is no contest.
  Mr. Martlew: If my hon. Friend had allowed me to continue my argument, perhaps he would have seen its logic.
  I represent a constituency in the north-west—other hon. Members who represent that region are present and perhaps they will speak in the same vein. I fear that if clause 7 is deleted, it will be difficult for a link to be made between Euston and King's Cross stations. This week, I had a meeting with senior British Rail officials. They are worried because they have no idea how they will get people from Euston to King's Cross so that people can enjoy the full benefits of the channel tunnel. It appears that they hope that someone will develop a tardis or time machine to get people across to King's Cross. That is worrying. if a solution is not found, support for the Bill from hon. Members representing the north-west will diminish considerably.
  Carlisle is near the Scottish border and I fear that travellers will go from Glasgow to Edinburgh and down the east coast to King's Cross because of the problems at Euston. If the amendment is accepted, it will be difficult for British Rail to find a solution. I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. If I represented his constituency I might make a similar case, but perhaps without his eloquence. After all, he is a member of the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team and one expects such eloquence from him.
  The north of England will suffer if the Bill is not passed. There are great reservations in the north-west. People believe that British Rail will improve the service on the eastern side of the country, once again, and leave us, as it has now, with an inferior service. I say that with great feeling, as I spent an hour and a quarter at Lichfield station on my way down to speak in the debate.
  I shall vote for the Bill. I hope that representatives of British Rail and Conservative Members will take note of the great concern felt by those of us from the north-west, who fear that we will not get the full benefits of the Bill.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) should know that there is no question in my mind, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), of putting the continued existence of the Great Northern hotel above and beyond the welfare of the north-west and

  875
  of his constituency in particular. I know that Carlisle has a good railway station, which serves one of the best BR breakfasts in the country—I have availed myself of it from time to time when travelling through that beautiful constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has fallen, once again, into the trap that has been skilfully and carefully prepared for those of my hon. Friends who represent the north. That trap is designed to suggest that, if the development at King's Cross does not go ahead, the north will lose out. That is not so. If my hon. Friend's constituents wish to travel from Carlisle to London in order to use the channel tunnel to reach the continent, it will not be of great concern to them whether they travel through King's Cross or through Stratford, unless they want to get out at King's Cross for some reason. If they are just intent on going through the channel tunnel, it does not matter through which London station they go. Given the large number of people from the north who want to go to the continent, perhaps it is more likely that they will use cheaper air services, thus avoiding the long train journey that would be involved in getting from Carlisle to Paris, for example.
  Mr. Martlew: Many of my constituents look forward to the day when they can fall asleep in Carlisle and wake up in Paris. That is the way in which people from the north-west will use the channel tunnel
  Mr. Banks: Every night I dream of waking up in Paris, but it rarely happens. However, I accept that that is a relevant point. If those people had gone to sleep in Carlisle, they would be even less aware of the London station through which they had passed. They would not be aware if they went via Stratford or King's Cross to Paris. That is my argument.
  Mr. Snape rose—
  Mr. Banks: Heavens, I have flushed out the old ticket collector.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend's wit has flushed out the same old argument, but flushing it out and peering at it does not make it any more attractive. Neither my constituents nor those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle could get to Paris via Stratford. Whatever the froth, verbiage or wit from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), he has not told us how to do that whether we are asleep or awake.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing the passenger concourse building. We must not widen the debate.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is continually provoking and goading me. I must tell him that I prefer his speeches when he is asleep rather than when he is awake, but I must let details about our personal relationship outside the House pass by.
  We are being asked to agree to the demolition of the Great Northern hotel. The sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), was disingenuous—I do not believe that he intended to be so, because he is an honest and honourable man—because once the Bill is passed, the pressure on the Department of the Environment, particularly from the Department of Transport, will be irresistible and listed building consent,
  876
  for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will be given. In effect, we are being asked to override the listed building consent, and what the hon. Gentleman said is a technicality, which amounts to nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has already made that point.
  I served as a member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and we noticed that the promoters of private Bills continually used private Bills to get around the usual planning procedures. On this occasion, the Select Committee considering the Bill saw that and stipulated that listed building consent was necessary. Unfortunately, that has erected only a very minor obstacle in British Rail's path and it has not safeguarded this grade 2 listed building.
  Once we have agreed that the Bill should go ahead, it would be inconceivable that the Department of the Environment would stand in British Rail's way. Even in the event that it did, the matter would go to the Secretary of State, and it is most unlikely, given that the Government and the Minister support the Bill, that the Secretary of State would refuse to give his consent to demolition. We must acknowledge that as a fact of life. All the technicalities in the world will amount to nothing in the face of realpolitik.
  The hon. Member for Keighley talked about Norman Foster's design. I am sure that it will be an excellent design, but we all know the sights that we will see in the new concourse, in the guise of the extra facilities that the hon. Gentleman described. There will be Sock Shops, Tie Racks, Casey Jones instant hamburger joints and Knickerboxes where hon. Members can buy frillies on their journeys north. Such places will add nothing distinctive to London—nothing different from what we can see on any other station concourse.
  I have said that the development at Liverpool Street is a sympathetic one, but even there the same sort of retail outlets are to be found. There will be no difference in Norman Foster's building.
  In effect, the House is being asked to agree to the demolition of yet another listed building in London—the Great Northern hotel. I hope that hon. Members, especially colleagues from the north, can remember the old Euston station building with its concourse and arch. Just to show that this is not a narrow party political point, I recall that that wonderful building was destroyed under a Labour Government. Can anyone claim that the new Euston concourse and station front are superior to the original building? We threw away a great piece of railway history, and I suspect that we will do the same to the Great Northern.
  Mr. Martlew: I know the new Euston station well, just as I knew the old one well. My father was an engine driver who took trains into it. For those of us who have to use the new station as passengers, the new station is greatly superior. The old one was a disaster. We should not have to keep buildings just because they are historic and look nice; we have to consider the passengers using them. If we do not, that is a recipe for disaster in the 21st century.
  Mr. Banks: That is certainly an argument, but I can think of many counter-arguments. The Palace of Westminster is not particularly convenient for the work of Members of Parliament, nor is it a particularly convenient building for visitors. So let us demolish it. I am sure that we can build a more effective building for our work. I note

  877
  that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle nods in agreement, but I suspect that he would run into some difficulties, perhaps even with the Department of the Environment, if he tried to demolish the Palace.
  Mr. Martlew: I should be delighted if this building were closed down and made into a museum. We could then build a new government building just south of Manchester and remove the Government from London. London has too much influence on how the rest of the country is governed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not discussing the merits of the Palace of Westminster or of Euston station.
  Mr. Banks: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend led me into giving a comparison, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have often suggested that we should have a moving Parliament that tours other parts of the country. Carlisle would make an excellent stopping place, as would Manchester, Bury—you name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I long to see those towns for longer periods than I have spent there before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle suggested that we close down this building, but he did not mention demolishing it. We are discussing the demolition of a building. I agree that the new Euston station is more convenient for passengers, but surely with the architectural skills that we still have in some measure in this country it is possible to combine the best of the old with the best of the new and not just start again from the floor, to to speak. I am sure that it would have been possible to preserve some of the architectural integrity and distinction of the old Euston station while combining it with the modern conveniences that passengers require. That should not be beyond our architects.
  It would be easier for London representatives to accept this clause if we knew that there was some way of marrying the excellence of Norman Foster's design with the design of Mr. Cubitt for the Great Northern. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Keighley does not seem prepared to offer us that. If he will give us an assurance that the House will be given another opportunity to consider whether the Great Northern should be demolished, I might be a little more satisfied. If he cannot, I shall support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury which, whatever hon. Members may think, is certainly not an attempt to destroy the Bill.
  It is an honourable course to want to preserve one of the nicer buildings of London. People who come here do so not to see our empty office blocks, to inhale our noxious air full of the exhaust of motor vehicles or to enjoy our weather; they come here to look at our buildings and to stay in some of our quainter hotels. Those hotels are disappearing apace and being replaced by Hiltons and Sheratons—the sort of hotels to be found in any other city around the world. In a chain hotel it is impossible to know whether one is in London, Tokyo or Rome—it cannot be guessed from the interior.
  In the Great Northern hotel, however, people know that they are in one of the great Victorian railway hotels where they can see the bed where Mr. Gladstone laid his grey and venerable head. Anyone prepared to walk with heavy boots over the memory of Mr. Gladstone is risking the anger not only of Londoners but of parliamentarians
  878
  of many former generations. People should think carefully before they do that, because Mr. Gladstone might return to haunt them while they are walking around the Sock Shops and Knickerboxes of the new concourse that will link these two stations.
  Mr. O'Brien: If people are still sleeping in the bed that Mr. Gladstone occupied in the Great Northern hotel, that is reason enough for its demolition. It should be modernised along the lines that British Rail is contemplating. If that is the best that the Great Northern can offer, it is time we looked at what provision we are making for tourists. If that is the best on offer, we are failing to encourage tourism in the area.
  However, if we have a new development and connections between the north-east and the north-west on that campus, there will be many benefits for many people who, I assume and hope, would favour the channel tunnel development. Are we saying that because a grade II listed building must remain, my constituents and the people of Carlisle and other places in the north will be denied the facilities that are associated with the channel tunnel? We cannot pay the price of maintaining the Great Northern hotel, a grade II listed building, if that means that my constituents and others in the north will be sacrificed and unable to benefit from the channel tunnel.
  Clause 7 refers to the development of a passenger service concourse. That is just part of the development of the facilities for the use of channel tunnel passengers. I hope that, after this episode, British Rail will introduce a programme whereby we in the north-east, the north-west and the Border areas will be told how the freight trains will transport goods from the north of England, through London and to the channel tunnel. That is not mentioned in the Bill. I hope that after tonight's debate, we shall hear some explanation to allay my concerns and those of my colleagues about what will happen in regard not only to passenger services, but freight services also.
  8 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend has touched on an exceptionally important point. The issue of freight and of how we can ensure that freight can reach the channel tunnel from all parts of the country is extremely important, but hitherto the Government have said not a word about it. There is no proposal that freight should go through King's Cross. At the moment and as far as we can understand, it is intended that freight will go round London. We have not heard any clear statement from the Government on that issue, and it is high time that we did.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing clause 7.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am referring to clause 7(1), Mr. Deputy Speaker, which states:
  "In this section 'the designated land' means the land in the London borough of Camden".
  I hope that references to the designation of land for development do not apply only to the provision of passenger services because we must consider other facilities, such as the provision of freight services.
  I rest my case on the fact that I believe that substantial advantages can flow from the development of facilities in the King's Cross-Euston-St. Pancras area and that people from the north can benefit tremendously from them. I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,

  879
  South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in the past on the issue of environmental assessments because I believe that his constituents must be protected against developments that might interfere with their quality of life. However, when it comes to the question of whether to retain a grade II listed building, and to weighing the consequences of its retention with the loss of advantage for millions of people in the north of England, I must appeal for the decision to be taken in favour of the people whom I represent in the north of England. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the value of those points.
  Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has made what appears on the surface to be a persuasive case, but the institution of the passenger concourse that British Rail is now proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross on the land referred to in clause 7 is not in any way an essential requirement to ensure that people in the north-east and north-west can benefit from the location of the international station at King's Cross. It is an adjunct to that basic requirement. The removal of clause 7 would not in any way damage the interests of the people who wish to travel from the north.
  Mr. Waller: I am sorry to have to press the hon. Gentleman on this point, but does he agree that if, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, it were impossible to develop any new concourse, all travellers—both long-distance travellers and commuters—would be seriously disadvantaged if the existing facilities had to be relied on? Would there not be great difficulty in overcoming the requirement for the existing concourse in front of King's Cross to be demolished if its temporary designation were not renewed, even assuming that there was not a big question mark over the length of time for which it can be renewed?
  Mr. Smith: In so far as the hon. Gentleman is referring to the inadequacies of the present concourse, he is entirely right, because it is not sufficient to cope with the existing passenger load at King's Cross. If 15 million extra passengers a year are to travel through King's Cross, the problem will be considerably worse. However, that is not the choice before us. I do not have the slightest doubt that it is possible to preserve the Great Northern hotel and to create a new concourse between King's Cross and St. Pancras and to do both without damaging the interests of travellers from the north. I am sure that, if British Rail applied its mind to that task, it would find it perfectly possible to come up with a solution.
  I should like to answer a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the links from the new passenger concourse—not to the north-east, but to the north-west. As my hon. Friend said, that is of fundamental importance to many of our colleagues who represent constituencies in the north-west. The ability to get from the new passenger concourse, to which the amendment refers, to Euston station, which is the obvious and main link to the north-west, is an essential part of British Rail's case for the entire Bill. However, British Rail has not been particularly candid about the link to Euston.
  On 25 November 1990, when we debated the carryover motion, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said:
  "All that I can say on the fixed link between Euston and the new complex"—
  which is what we are considering in clause 7—
  "—because I mentioned that a number of options are still being considered—is that it will he a dedicated link. Some of
  880
  the roads in the vicinity which are owned by British Rail, for example, may be used and a bus may travel on a dedicated route or on a dedicated track. At this stage, I cannot say what the link will be, although I can say that it will be a dedicated, high-quality link."—[Official Report, 25 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 686.]
  We are entitled to ask both of the Government and British Rail what precisely this dedicated high-quality link will be. The House will recall that the original British Rail proposal was for a travelator linking King's Cross and Euston. Let us leave aside the fact that a travelator would have to be at least 1 km in length and require a journey, moving at the sort of speed at which travelators at Heathrow airport move, of 20 minutes. British Rail then discovered that there was a slight problem about linking the new passenger concourse at King's Cross with Euston by a travelator. It would have to run directly through the six-storey basement of the British Library, which has just been built at enormous public expense and which lies slap-bang between the new concourse and the link to Euston and the north-west.
  Having discovered that a travelator would not be the easy answer that it supposed it to be, British Rail appears to be saying that such a plan is not on—there has been some discussion between British Rail and local authorities in the north-west—and it is looking at other options. Among the options is a subway with a partial travelator. This would involve a travelator for part of the way and then passengers would have to walk, carrying their suitcases, for the rest of the way. Another option is a subway on its own, with no travelator. That would involve a walk of 1 km to get from the channel tunnel train at King's Cross to a train to the north-west at Euston. For many people, a walk of that distance would be a discouragement to making the journey.
  Another option is a light rail transit link between stations. If it were to be effective, that would impose a substantial extra cost on the operation. Another option is a bus route from one station to the other, perhaps through all the local residential streets that have recently been subjected to traffic calming measures and the exclusion of substantial vehicular traffic.
  I say to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the north-west that the assumption on which everyone entered discussions about the Bill—that it would be easy and simple to get from the channel tunnel trains at King's Cross to the trains to the north-west from Euston—will not hold. Unless and until British Rail comes clean on how the Euston link will be managed and created, there will be continuing doubt about that link. I say that because this is an important point, relating to the issue of the new passenger concourse dealt with in the amendment and because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle was right to raise a question mark over how sincere British Rail is in assuring us that links to the north-west will be readily available.
  The debate on this amendment has ranged reasonably widely. At the outset, I raised two points that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) then failed to address. The first involves a point of principle. That is, that it is wrong for the House, by means of private Bills, to take planning decisions. The second point is that British Rail has submitted a planning application to the London borough of Camden for the outline permission that is set out in clause 7. By that action, it has admitted that it has no need to seek the powers in clause 7.

  881
  8.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Keighley made one valid point —that there might be, he was advised, some work below ground that required, as an essential ingredient, parliamentary authority. If that is the case, British Rail should be seeking authority for those below-ground works and not including as part of them the above-ground works for which it does not require parliamentary authority. Clause 7 specifically says:
  "The Board may in, on, over or under any part of the designated land make, maintain and operate the passenger concourse".
  Therefore, even if British Rail does require parliamentary authority to carry out works under the designated land, it does not need to come to the House for authority to do so in, on or over. That is the argument that lies behind the amendment, and I commend it to the House.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

  STOPPING UP ROADS
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 20, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
  '(5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board or the Company to purchase or use the land in the London Borough of Camden numbered 88–101 on the deposited plans.'.
  No. 4, in clause 23, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
  '(3A) On completion of Works Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4A and 4B, the Board shall, within six months, reinstate on the land numbered on the deposited plans 25 in the London Borough of Camden, the natural park known as Camley Street Natural Park, with all necessary facilities and conveniences.'.
  No. 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 38, at end insert—
  '(5) Within six months of completion of Work No. 2, the Board shall reinstate on the site of 13–17 Caledonian Road in the London Borough of Islington, land numbered 76 in the deposited plans, a hostel of at least 33 bedspaces for homeless people.'.
  No. 11, in schedule 4, page 26, line 8, column 3, leave out
  'for the general purposes of the Board'
  and insert
  'to be returned to the freeholder'.
  No. 12, in schedule 4, page 26, line 10, at end insert—
  '39–70 For the provision of a construction site and thereafter to be returned to the freeholder.'.
  Mr. Smith: This group of amendments deals with a number of detailed aspects of the works that British Rail is proposing and especially with what should happen to land or property once British Rail's need to use them in carrying out the works has expired.
  Amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12 are very much of a piece. The key point concerns use of land. If British Rail requires land not for its railway purposes, such as putting a track or station on it, but simply to assist with building work—for example, to gain access to the great box that it intends to create below level, as a place to put site huts on, or to keep some of the ancillary equipment that it needs to carry out the basic railway works—once the work is finished and the station is complete, those bits of land should be returned to their original owners. The Bill does not say that. In such cases, British Rail can retain land
  882
  when the work is finished even when there is no railway-specific need to retain it, and presumably undertake property development and make a profit on it.
  The amendments argue that, instead of British Rail acting as a property developer and profiting from land when its need to use it has ended, that land should be returned to its former owners for whatever better potential use they may decide.
  Mr. Derek Stuckey wrote to me in considerable detail about the land that is in his ownership. I can best set the scene by explaining that Mr. Stuckey is a 75-year-old barrister who retains chambers at No. 3 Dr. Johnson's buildings in the Temple. Mr. Stuckey lives at No. 2 to 2a Keystone crescent, which property is directly subject to the Bill.
  Mr. Stuckey was born at No. 2 Keystone crescent, and his family have owned land at King's Cross—including that now sought to be acquired—for more than 100 years. His son Robert and his family live at No. 9 Keystone crescent, and his other son, George, lives at No. 1 Omega place. Therefore, the family have deep roots in the area affected by the Bill.
  Mr. Stuckey writes that the total area of land that he owns, and which is in the purview of the amendments, is about half an acre, and includes within the limits of deviation of the Bill nine shops in Caledonian road—Nos. 10 to 26, even, inclusive. They include a health food shop, cafe, toiletries, florists, newsagent and confectioner, men's and women's outfitters, greengrocer, barber shop, and an Italian delicatessen. The upper parts of those shops are used mainly for residential purposes.
  Mr. Stuckey writes:
  "The construction of the low-level station would result in the demolition of the parade of shops, and of the garage at the rear. Yet, according to the plans submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the most unfavourable view, only a small part of this land would be occupied by the proposed low-level station. By far the greater part of the land would be used solely as a site for the purposes of the construction of the low-level station.
  At the end of the day, it is proposed that British Railways Board shall retain, not simply the proposed low-level station but the remainder of the land taken as a construction site."
  In other words, after British Rail had used the land as a construction site, and, although it would not thereafter need it for any specific railway or station purposes, British Rail would continue to own it.
  Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 seek to ensure that those parts of the site currently owned by Mr. Stuckey and not required for the railway or the station are returned to him, so that he may decide on proposals for its subsequent use. If British Rail Property Board makes that decision, I suspect that we will see not a return to the small, human-scale shopping facilities that currently exist, but a British Rail office block.
  "It is suggested that British Railways Board should not be permitted by private Bill to acquire land for development, but only for the operational purposes of their railway, and that the persons from whom it is compulsorily acquired should have the opportunity of redeveloping it, once the primary purpose of acquiring the land—the construction of the low-level station—has been accomplished … None the less, the return to me of the remaining one third of the site"—
  the other two thirds are not owned by Mr. Stuckey—
  "would enable me or my successors to influence the development of the former coach station, in the interests of the residents of Keystone Crescent, and to endeavour to secure the rebuilding of the parade of shops, in substantially the same form, though with such modifications and improvements as might be necessary and practicable."

  883
  Mr. Stuckey says that, if the land is not required by British Rail after the development has been completed were returned to him, he would be sensitive to the traditions of the area—in terms of the kind of shops that currently exist and the need to replace them. You can bet your boots, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if British Rail Property Board retains ownership of the land, it will not have the same interests of the local people and community at heart.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend see a link between the case that he describes and that of Crichel Down, in which—in almost exactly parallel circumstances—land was not returned for agricultural purposes until a court decided that that was just what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was required to do? It might be better to accept my hon. Friend's amendment to ensure that Mr. Stuckey, who is a barrister, does not delay matters by indulging in litigation—particularly as there may be a major precedent to help him.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend draws an extremely important analogy. The Bill provides for British Rail to retain the ownership of the sites when the development is completed for the general purposes of the board. They cover a multifarious array of activities, including office development, to maximise British Rail's profit. That is not necessarily a fair way of dealing with someone such as Mr. Stuckey, whose family has had land in the area for a substantial length of time.
  Amendment No. 2 will delete from clause 10 the proposed road closure of Omega place. Even if that closure is temporarily required for works to be undertaken, it is wrong to write into the Bill the permanent closure of Omega place, when that is not a requirement for the completed station's operation. Mr. Stuckey writes:
  "future development is likely to lead to the construction of a single, large building or block of buildings, which will materially alter the character of the district, to the prejudice of the residents and of the neighbourhood."
  By seeking the permanent closure of Omega place, British Rail aims to ensure that subsequent development can spread on either side, while including Omega place itself, and a bigger office block can be built subsequently. That would substantially alter the character of the neighbourhood.
  Mr. Stuckey continues:
  "The time for considering the closure of Omega Place is when plans for future redevelopment of the site are put forward. If those plans are of sufficient merit to warrant it, the closure of Omega Place can then be considered, and effected by the usual procedure, which provides for objections by owners of land adjoining the highway. Until such plans are put forward, and shown to be an improvement on what exists at present, the bias should be towards a redevelopment of the land substantially in its present, useful form."
  That puts the case very succinctly. So far, British Rail has told us nothing about what it will put in place of the land that it is grabbing by means of the Bill, and the additional land that will result from the closure of Omega place. I fear, however, that we shall see a substantial commercial office development.
  8.30 pm
  If that is so, by enabling Omega place to be closed and ensuring that British Rail can hang on to bits of land that it will not need after the completion of the station, we are allowing British Rail carte blanche to present whatever proposals it wishes to present. We ought to be saying, "Let
  884
  us look specifically at what British Rail proposes—or what the present owners propose—at the time when the proposals are presented."
  British Rail does not need the powers that it seeks in the Bill to build its station. We should ensure that such matters as the closure of Omega place are decided on their merits, at the appropriate time, rather than being dealt with now, on a permanent basis, when British Rail requires only a temporary closure to carry out its work.
  Amendment No. 11 relates to other working sites, which are not owned by Mr. Stuckey to the same extent. Schedule 4 concerns a large area of land in both Camden and Islington, towards the north of the site. Here again we confront the problem referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The schedule would enable that piece of land to be used for the provision of a construction site, and
  "thereafter for the general purposes of the Board."
  Most of the land should be returned to its former owners, under the Great Northern Railways Act of 1846, if it ceases to be used for railway purposes.
  The Camden land is currently the subject of litigation by its former owners, the St. Bartholomew's hospital trustees. I shall not say too much about that, because the matter is sub judice; suffice it to say that the trustees are arguing powerfully that the land which, under the 1846 Act, ought to be returned to them, should not end up in the hands of British Rail if British Rail has no specific railway purpose in mind for it. They feel that that principle ought to apply when land is needed for construction purposes, but is not required when the construction is over.
  According to the book of reference attached to the 1846 Act, the equivalent land in Islington used to be owned by a gentleman called Mr. Leigh Keck. Mr. Keck's descendants, or assignees, may be interested in getting their land back, just as the St. Bartholomew's trustees are interested in getting theirs back. Amendment No. 11 would resolve all those problems by ensuring that working sites that are required for works but not for the station that will subsequently be built should be returned to their freeholders, or to the descendants of the original owners.
  Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that the Camley street natural park is reinstated within six months of the completion of the works that will destroy it. The park was created, as a superb natural ecological environment, by the Greater London Council, and has been much appreciated by many hundreds of local school children. It has been used as an educational resource by both Camden and Islington education authorities. The park, which is located beside the canal, will be destroyed if the Bill is enacted. British Rail intends to build a series of railway tracks there.
  I should be fair to British Rail: it has consistently said that the park will subsequently be reinstated. That will be difficult; it is impossible to develop a fragile ecological environment overnight. British Rail, however, claims that it may even make the park a little bigger.
  My amendment effectively says to British Rail, "Once you no longer need the area for the works, the Camley street park must be reinstated immediately". I do not want British Rail to drag its feet, feeling—when the station is completed and the railway lines are in place, and it is time to turn to the property development that London Regeneration may then be beginning to undertake—that office blocks come first and Camley street comes last.

  885
  I want Camley street to come first; I want to ensure that that precious educational and environmental resource is restored at the first opportunity for the benefit of local children. I hope that, even if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) will not accept amendment No. 4, he will give a firm commitment that British Rail will embark immediately on the job of reinstating Camley street once the land is no longer required for works.
  Amendment No. 5 concerns a hostel for the homeless, now located at 13–17 Caledonian road. The hostel was opened in May last year by the Minister for Housing and Planning, with a considerable fanfare of trumpets. The local newspaper was very positive about the affair. It interviewed a young woman called Tracy Atkinson, who was being housed in the hostel. The report stated:
  "Housing minister George Young, opening the 33-bed hostel in Caledonian Road on Thursday last week, was shown Tracy's room and heard first hand how she"—
  oh, I beg the House's pardon—Tracy Atkinson is a man, not a woman—
  "how he had ended up there."
  The point is that that hostel for the homeless was created with assistance from the Church housing association and was sponsored by the Government and opened by the Minister only seven or eight months ago, yet it is one of the properties affected by the Bill.
  As soon as British Rail gets permission to start compulsorily purchasing and demolishing property, the hostel will be one of the properties to go. At most, the hostel will have had a life of two years or perhaps three years if it is lucky. Surely provision for homeless people should not be made on the basis that a facility will be up and running for only two or three years. My amendment does not seek to stop it being knocked down, because that would fundamentally breach the Bill, but it seeks to ensure that once the work is finished a hostel for the homeless will be recreated by British Rail.
  British Rail will have the necessary land because it will have the land on top of the station box which it will try to redevelop. It will also have all the railway land behind King's Cross and St. Pancras stations which London Regeneration is likely to develop and all the land that it is taking for construction purposes but which it will not need for the station. Therefore, British Rail will have the land and the amendment would ensure that a hostel for the homeless would be recreated in any subsequent development undertaken by British Rail.
  Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete from the land used by the promoters what is known as the lighthouse block. Hon. Members who frequently go through King's Cross will know that the lighthouse block is the building at the apex of the triangle as one faces along the Euston road towards Pentonville road with King's Cross on the left. The building immediately in front of one at the apex of the triangle has a structure on top of it which is reminiscent of a lighthouse, and it has always been known as the lighthouse block.
  The triangular block of which the lighthouse is the apex is bounded by Grays Inn road, Pentonville road and King's Cross bridge just to the east of King's Cross station. Although it is included in the Bill, British Rail announced on the first day of the Committee hearings—on 22 June 1989—that it was not needed for any of the work included in the Bill. British Rail is saying—and has been saying for the past two years—that it does not need to take the
  886
  lighthouse block. In that case, the promoters should be able to accept my amendment immediately, because it seeks only to delete that block from the Bill.
  This detailed series of amendments relates to specific pieces of land which British Rail may in some instances require temporarily but not subsequently. In the case of the lighthouse block, it is land that it does not require at all. Camley street and the hostel for the homeless are important social facilities on existing property and pieces of land in the area which I seek to have reinstated or recreated by British Rail as rapidly as possible after it has completed its works. Those are reasonable points, and I hope that they will receive a reasonable response from the Bill's sponsor.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Waller: I shall deal with the amendments in the order chosen by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The promoters are not able to accept amendment No. 12. Its effect would be to prevent the British Railways Board from permanently acquiring the major portion of an area of land which is known locally as the coach station block, and it would limit the board's powers to acquire the block temporarily as a construction site.
  The coach station is not required by the British Railways Board merely as a construction site. The proposed low-level station and its approach tracks from the south-east will be located on or under the block and, therefore, the board requires permanently to acquire and retain the freehold of the block to enable the construction and maintenance of the works so that the block will become operational land over which the board will retain permanent access and control.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) drew what I considered a spurious comparison with the Crichel Down case, but, as he will know, in that case the land was not used for the purposes for which it was acquired, and the scandal arose because, in the meantime, its price had inflated considerably and the original owner did not benefit. In this case, of course, the land will definitely be used and is required not for property development but for the railway works themselves.
  If the amendment were accepted, it would create significant difficulties, because it includes all the properties in the coach station block except four in the row of shops facing Caledonian road, which are omitted for some unaccountable reason known only to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Perhaps he will explain why the owners of those properties should not also enjoy the benefit of his proposed amendment. There seems to be a defect in the drafting of the amendment, which I think, would ensure a result entirely contrary to that which he intends.
  Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my analogy with the Crichel Down case is mistaken because, in this instance, British Rail has no intention of undertaking any development after the purchase of the land, the use of it as a construction site and its restoration as there will be a need for some of the land—in whole or in part—to be in operational use underneath to allow for the approach of other tracks? If so, is he also saying that, if British Rail gets hold of land which is superfluous to requirements for construction purposes, it would be

  887
  parallel to the Crichel Down case if British Rail then obtained the enhanced value of the land and retained it for entirely different purposes?
  Mr. Waller: No, I am saying that British Rail would not be seeking to acquire the land for its temporary or permanent purposes if it were not for the railway development work that it intends to carry out. There is no comparison with the Crichel Down case, which involved different issues and in which the land was not used at all, but in which the original owner did not benefit.
  I must disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury by saying that amendment No. 2 cannot be accepted. It would take from the Bill the power permanently to stop up Omega place between points X8 and X9 as shown on the deposited plans. It is considered that Omega place is too narrow and is located too near Pentonville road to be capable of being used as a means of access to the coach station block following the construction of the works, and that it must therefore be stopped up permanently. Indeed, the Department of Transport King's Cross highways improvement scheme has been prepared on the basis that Omega place will remain stopped up and that access to the coach station block will instead be via Northdown street.
  Amendment No. 11, too, is unacceptable. It relates to properties in Camden forming part of the railway lands at King's Cross that are owned by the British Railways Board and are occupied partly by the board and partly by the operators of concrete mixing plant and other industrial users. Schedule 4 to the Bill will enable these properties to be used for the provision of a construction site and, therefore, for the general purposes of the board. This amendment would revise that provision so that it would read:
  "For the provision of a construction site and thereafter to be returned to the freeholder."
  But the amendment is misconceived, since all these properties are already in the ownership of the board. This is another point that the hon. Gentleman seems to have neglected to check before tabling his amendment.
  Amendment No. 4 would require the British Railways Board to reinstate the Camley street natural park in its present position after completion of the relevant works. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the board accepts the importance of preserving this facility, and detailed discussions between the board, the London Wildlife Trust and the London borough of Camden have been taking place over a long period. It is expected that a satisfactory agreement will be reached between the board, the trust and the borough with respect to the natural park. This will cover a number of matters, including the park's resiting during and after completion of the works.
  As was said during a previous debate, it is intended that, during the construction work, there will be a small natural park. This will ensure an element of continuity, which would otherwise be lost. The amendment is inappropriate in that, its limitations would impose too simplistic a solution on a complex problem—a solution that would not entirely meet the wishes of any of the parties most closely concerned with these sensitive issues.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I should like to put two questions to the hon. Gentleman. First, he says that there are proposals for the re-creation of Camley street to a limited extent during the course of the works. Is that the project in respect of which British Rail very recently submitted an
  888
  application for planning permission to knock down a building in Goods way, in the Regent's canal conservation area, to make way for a car park and study centre? If that is indeed the case, it is a very small site, which in no way represents a replacement, even on a temporary basis, for Camley street.
  Secondly, in the discussions with Camden and the London Wildlife Trust, has any account been taken of the time scale for the re-creation of Camley street on a permanent basis after the work has been done? It is time scale that my amendment seeks most actively to promote.
  Mr. Waller: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The temporary park is indeed related to the application to which he has referred. I do not think I used the word "replacement". It is not intended that that temporary facility should be an adequate replacement. That is why the promoters propose replacing the existing natural park with a rather larger one in a slightly altered position.
  The existing park came into existence very quickly. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fragile ecological environment. Anyone who has examined the site of the Camley street natural park will be aware that the environment in which it developed was not propitious so far as the intentions of the people who devised it were concerned. In many ways, it is a tribute to their imagination that it came into existence, and the board is certainly determined that there should be developed something that is just as much an asset to the area and to the schoolchildren who visit it.
  It is not possible at this stage to give an exact time scale, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is determined that the facility that comes into existence following completion of the works will be at least as good as that which currently exists. In fact, because it is larger, it will be ecologically suitable for a wider variety of species. I do not believe that the people of the locality will be disappointed with the park that they are ultimately able to enjoy. The hon. Gentleman's narrow amendment does not really accord with the wishes of those parties most closely concerned with these issues, and I do not believe that they would necessarily support the amendment in its present form.
  I am afraid that I am unable, on behalf of the promoters, to accept amendment No. 5, which relates to a building known as 13–17 Caledonian road, Islington, which is owned by a finance company, Gleniffer Finance Corporation Ltd. When the Bill was deposited, that building was vacant, and it will be demolished for the purposes of the works. Pending demolition, the owners made arrangements to enable the building to be used as temporary residential accommodation for homeless persons, but that temporary use will cease on demolition.
  I submit that it would be unreasonable to require the board to provide on that site a permanent hostel for homeless persons. In any event, there must be doubt as to whether this is a suitable place for such a hostel. The suggestion that it is suitable is not reflected in the land uses contained in the planning brief recently approved by the Islington council.
  Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are seriously in error in having as their flagship the conquest of homelessness in London and the removal of some of the cardboard cities? Have we simply

  889
  had a plaster to cover the terrible policies that resulted in the creation of cardboard cities in London and other major urban areas? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are mistaken in undertaking the work at this site?
  Mr. Waller: The task of providing accommodation for homeless people in London is a vital one. What I am saying is that it is not a task for the British Railways Board. Arrangements were made to ensure that this building would not stand empty during the period of construction. However, that concession—if I may call it a concession—was not intended to suggest that there should be a permanent requirement on the board to provide a hostel for homeless people. That is a desirable objective, but one to be addressed by other agencies.
  I am happy to say that amendment No. 3 is acceptable. It would disapply the powers of compulsory purchase which would otherwise apply to the properties referred to in the Select Committee proceedings as the island triangular block—the so-called lighthouse block. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, since the Bill was deposited, the design for the works has been further refined, and the promoters are now satisfied that they will not need to purchase compulsorily any property in the island triangular block. The promoters are therefore prepared to accept amendment No. 3.
  9 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: Before turning to the welcome news about amendment No. 3, I shall comment briefly on the other amendments. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) castigated me in relation to amendment No. 11 for seeming to be unaware that some of the land to which the amendment referred and which it required to be returned to the freeholder was at present in British Rail ownership. I was, of course, aware of that.
  The point that I sought to make through the amendment was that the provisions of the Great Northern Railways Act of 1846 have still not been fully resolved in relation to those portions of land. We shall shortly discuss the specific provisions of the 1846 Act and the rights of reversion. It is possible that, if the land ceases to be required for railway purposes, under the provisions of the 1846 Act, it immediately has to leave the hands of British Rail and be returned to the original owners. I was conscious of that point, and that is why the amendment is drafted in its present form.
  I am disappointed to hear that it is not possible to give a time scale for the replacement of Camley street natural park. We all hope that, when it is replaced, Camley street will be bigger and better, and even more of an educational resource for local children and local people than the existing natural park is. There is a lot of local concern about how rapidly, or slowly, that will happen.
  The purpose of amendment No. 4 was to spur British Rail on to say that Camley street must be replaced as quickly as possible, rather than have the matter dragged out until the very end of any development on the railway land. That is a danger, because Camley street will not be profitable for BR. It is an obligation that BR will have to undertake for the benefit of the community. I hope that British Rail will not say that, because the natural park is a community benefit and because the board will not reap
  890
  a profit from it, it will wait for years before it recreates the park. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Keighley did not give a commitment about the time scale.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Many of us from Scotland are keen that the Bill should make progress because of the benefits that it will bring to Scotland. However, as a supporter I say that I, too, am disappointed that there has not been a better commitment about Camley street natural park. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) well in his campaign because, although we support the Bill, I assure him that we also support Camley street natural park.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he just said. His comment shows that, even among colleagues who strongly support the location of the new international station at King's Cross, there is concern about the impact on local people and on the local environment, and on the extremely valuable resource of Camley street natural park which was created by the Greater London council.
  On amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for Keighley said that it was not in the purview of BR to create permanent accommodation for homeless persons. If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that he believes that BR's purpose is fundamentally to run a railway, and to provide stations, trains and transport, I agree. It is not in the purview of BR to seek to make profit out of property speculation and property development.
  If the hon. Member for Keighley is taking the attitude that he has taken on the question of any re-creation of a hostel for the homeless, I urge him to take precisely the same attitude on the future of the land referred to in amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12, because the land and the property mentioned there are not required by British Rail for running a railway either. If British Rail is not in the business of providing hostels for the homeless, it should not be in the business of speculating on land which it will, in effect, have expropriated from the land's existing owners.
  The basis of amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12 is that, if British Rail does not require a particular piece of land once the station is completed—it has to have that land for access, construction or some other purpose while the work goes on but the purpose ceases once the station is completed—it should not be able to make a killing out of having compulsorily purchased that land in the first instance and then subsequently seeking to develop it. That is an important point of principle.
  The House should protect the interests of existing owners rather than handing over land that British Rail does not need permanently. If BR needs the land temporarily, we should give it temporarily to BR in the Bill, but we should not allow BR to take permanently something that it does not need permanently.
  Having said that, however, and having explained why I think that the hon. Member for Keighley and British Rail are wrong to seek the powers that my amendments would delete, there is good news on amendment No. 3. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, BR has said that it does not now require the lighthouse block. In that case, I hope that we can now proceed to vote on amendment No. 3 to ensure that that provision is indeed deleted from the Bill.

  891
  You may be able to guide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how this can be done under our procedures. Instead of voting on amendment No. 2, which I moved, I wish to ensure that we can put amendment No. 3 to a vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member seek the leave of the House to withdraw his amendment No. 2?
  Mr. Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

Clause 20

  PURCHASE OF LAND
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that amendment No. 3 is agreeable to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) speaking on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?
  Mr. Waller: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—
  '(5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board or the Company to purchase or use the land in the London Borough of Camden numbered 88–101 on the deposited plans.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Clause 28

  ABOLITION OF RIGHTS OF REVERTER AND PRE-EMPTION
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 17, line 14, leave out clause 28.
  We touched on some of the issues relating to the amendment in our discussion on the last group of amendments. The amendment would delete clause 28 on the abolition of rights of reverter and pre-emption. The purpose of clause 28 is to abolish rights given to landowners in the 1840s and 1850s when King's Cross station and the Great Northern railway were created.
  Pre-emption means the right to buy back land acquired under the Great Northern Railway Act of 1846, if and when it ceases to be used for railway purposes, and here is the real sting in the tail: pre-emption means the buying back of that land at the original purchase price. Hon. Members will immediately identify the importance of that particular right. The original purchase price was about £100 per acre and, if the land were now available to the original holder at such a price, it would constitute an extremely valuable asset.
  The reference to rights of reverter is a reference to the equivalent rights written into contracts for voluntary sale by at least one landowner; so the principle in the case of both rights—pre-emption and reverter—is exactly the same. Those who owned the original land back in the 1850s, who either had the land compulsorily purchased by the railway company or sold it by voluntary agreement, should have the right to re-acquire it if it ceases to be used for railway purposes—and to do so at the original purchase price. British Rail does not require some of the land for railway purposes, and seeks, under clause 28, to override the provisions of the 1846 Act.
  Two major organisations have come forward to claim their rights to the land referred to in the clause. Many other people and organisations owned land in the King's Cross station area in the 1850s, and there may well be substantial numbers of descendants of the original owners
  892
  who, were they aware of their rights under the 1846 Act, would be extremely concerned to learn that clause 28 would remove those rights. We know of two organisations in precisely that position—the special trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners.
  Both organisations have gone to court to prove and protect their rights. They won their case in the chancery division. British Rail appealed and judgment on that appeal is awaited, so the matter is, strictly, sub judice. It is generally believed that, whatever the outcome of the appeal, the matter is likely to go before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  British Rail wants to short-circuit that process. It is intent on abolishing the right of pre-emption and reverter and ensuring that, when any of the land is no longer required for railway purposes—it has used the land and no longer needs it once the works are completed—it can develop that land. For some years now, British Rail and the London Regeneration Consortium have been discussing the possibility of such development, which would be extremely valuable, although the current state of the property market—with 20 or 25 per cent. overcapacity in office space in London and surrounding areas—the package has become somewhat less financially attractive for British Rail and the developers. That is throwing into question some of the financial calculations that British Rail must have been making in relation to the King's Cross project.
  The point is quite clear: British Rail wants to hang on to such land even though it no longer requires it to run a railway or a station, and to overturn rights which, for the past 150 years, have pertained to St. Bartholomew's and the Church Commissioners—and, for all we know, many other organisations and individuals. I do not think that it is right that British Rail should seek to overturn such long-standing rights. I do not think that it is right for British Rail to seek to expropriate property which it no longer needs for running a railway.
  British Rail should be in the business of creating stations and running trains. BR should not be in the business of taking rights away from the descendants of previous owners of the land to enable BR to make a profit out of property development. That is what clause 28 would make possible. I believe that clause 28 should be removed from the Bill, and that is precisely what my amendment would do.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Waller: If the amendment were accepted, it would remove from the Bill a power to be conferred on the British Railways Board to abolish certain rights of reverter and pre-emption that may exist over land specified in clause 28. The bodies that would be affected by the exercise of that power—the Church Commissioners, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the National Freight Corporation—would be suitably compensated. The matter is the subject of litigation between the board and those bodies. The parties are fully protected by the litigation, which, I submit, should be allowed to run its proper course. The question whether the clause should remain in the Bill may then be settled in the other place, when that litigation has been determined. Nothing could be achieved by our accepting the amendment.

  893
  I hope that that answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that any good purpose would be achieved by accepting the amendment, and I therefore have to disappoint him.
  Mr. Chris Smith: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  I must confess that I am as disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response as I expected to be. I did not expect that British Rail would be prepared to give way on this rather important point.
  We all hope that the judicial process which is currently under way will take proper and fair cognisance of the rights of not just British Rail but the original owners of the land in question. But, if the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the judicial process ought to decide this matter, there is no need for British Rail to have this clause in the Bill.
  We hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, their Lordships will be mindful of the concern that several of us have expressed in the House about overriding the rights of pre-emption and reverter. It is a matter to which the Committee that considered the Bill referred and on which a number of hon. Members have consistently expressed concern. It is a matter which ought to be, and could be, decided by judicial process rather than by the inclusion of clause 28 in the Bill and I certainly hope that their Lordships will take note of these facts.
  I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I wish to put the matter to the House.
  Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1

  DESCRIPTIONS OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 5 OF THIS ACT
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 50, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 21.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 22, leave out lines 28 to 33.
  No. 9, in schedule 2 page 23, leave out line 6.
  No. 10, in schedule 3, page 24 leave out line 45.
  Mr. Smith: These amendments are of a somewhat detailed nature and relate to some of the specific items of work which are included in the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to delete works Nos. 01 and 014. Those works were proposed by London Underground Ltd. rather than British Rail. They relate entirely to work to the underground concourse at King's Cross, which was recommended in the Fennell report on the tragic fire at King's Cross underground station. Hon. Members will probably recall that some of my constituents died in that fire, as did some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Firefighters from my constituency and his operated with amazing bravery in trying to ensure that the tragic loss of life was kept to a minimum. None of us needs to be reminded of the need to ensure that the proper safety works recommended by Fennell can be carried out.
  894
  When London Underground came forward with proposals for works in connection with the Fennell proposals, and included them in the King's Cross Railways Bill, we did not object to them. We wanted to see them on the statute book as quickly as possible. London Underground, being more sensible than British Rail, saw its opportunity and published a separate Bill, the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, which includes specifically works Nos. 01 and 014.
  That Bill has gone through all its stages in this House, and is now under consideration in another place. I am pleased to have been able to assist in ensuring that it got through its procedures in this House quickly. It has leapfrogged the King's Cross Railways Bill and is ahead of it in the queue of private Bills. I hope that it will go through another place quickly, so that the works may be undertaken as soon as possible.
  In those circumstances, it seems otiose, to say the least, to have works Nos. 01 and 014 still in the King's Cross Railways Bill. I hope that my amendment, which seeks to delete them, will be acceptable to the promoters of the Bill, because it is nonsense to include them when they are covered by another Bill which is already ahead of the King's Cross Railway Bill in the legislative programme.
  Amendment No. 9 seeks to delete access point A8 in Railway street. That access point is redundant for British Rail. If it were used, it would have a severe impact on the residents of Balfe street, which is a small street of residential accommodation. Much of it has been renovated in recent years by the London borough of Islington, and the houses are occupied by council tenants who are my constituents.
  The access point is redundant because, under the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill, British Rail seeks a replacement access point known as A27. That Bill has just been deposited and made its initial attempt at Second Reading earlier today. The new access point is at the junction of Railway street and York way. Petitioners against that Bill object to that proposal and have suggested other points in York way that would be preferable and would avoid unnecessary demolition.
  Although alternative access points have been proposed by British Rail and local objectors and petitioners, British Rail is still pursuing access point A8, which the amendment seeks to delete. It is worth noting that that access point is less than 30 m from the rear of houses on Balfe street and is at the start of a steep ramp. British Rail's engineering witness said, in front of the Committee that considered the Bill, that he preferred an access point nearer to York way because of the steep ramp, which makes the access point a bad engineering solution for British Rail. Furthermore, the disruption and disturbance of residents in Balfe street should also be taken into account. For all those reasons, it would be sensible to accept the amendment.
  Amendment No. 10 seeks to delete Balfe street from the rods to be dug up in the construction of a replacement of the York way sewer. When the works are undertaken, Balfe street will be surrounded by construction work. The amendment is an attempt to remove just one small and unnecessary part of the work that will be inflicted on Balfe street residents. Work No. 13, to which the amendment relates, is a sewer diversion required by the position of the low-level station. At present, the sewer runs down the line at York way, but it will have to be diverted once the enormous low-level box is created by the Bill. The

  895
  proposed sewer will run along Railway street from York way and then down Balfe street to Caledonian road, where it will join the existing sewer. So the proposed diversion route will include a new sewer running straight down Balfe street.
  Although alternatives were put to the British Rail engineer in Committee, they were rejected for various reasons. However, two weeks after the Committee finally reported, British Rail announced that the sewer could be tunnelled after all and said that there was no need to dig up Balfe street because it could tunnel from the existing sewer to a proposed sewer. That was said at a meeting on 22 May 1991, whereas the Committee had reported on 8 May 1991.
  My amendment would remove Balfe street from the list of streets that should be dug up in order to carry out sewer works. It simply seeks to give practical legislative effect to British Rail's claim that it does not need to dig up Balfe street, that it can achieve that sewer diversion by tunnelling. If BR is certain that it can achieve that and that it can carry out the necessary sewer diversion work without having to dig up the whole of the middle of Balfe street, with all the inevitable noise, disturbance and disruption, that will be extremely welcome to the residents. Those residents are already suffering 24 hours a day, seven days a week because of the work that is going on. As a result of the amendment, another additional item of work, which would have an impact on those residents, would be removed.
  9.30 pm
  That is the import of my amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 relate to work that British Rail does not need to include in this Bill because London Underground has extracted them and put them in another Bill. Amendment No. 9 relates to an access point, which is not needed because an alternative already exists, as well as another alternative in another Bill. If that work were persisted with, it would create many difficulties for the residents. Amendment No. 10 relates to the diversion of the sewer and the inclusion of work in Balfe street. However, BR has agreed that that work is not specifically required, because the necessary diversion could be achieved by other means.
  The amendments are specific and reasonable, and I trust that they will commend themselves to the House. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will feel able to accept some of my amendments.
  Mr. Waller: I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the House that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are acceptable to the promoters.
  As the hon. Gentleman explained, those amendments effectively leave out works Nos. 01 and 014. Those works are safety measures recommended in the Fennell report and would be carried out by London Underground Limited. Due to the delay that had been encountered by the promoters of the Bill, London Underground has decided that those essential safety works should be authorised in a separate Bill to be enacted as soon as possible. The London Underground (King's Cross) Bill was therefore deposited in November and provides for the construction of similar works, which will supersede works Nos. 01 and 014. The House will be aware that the latter Bill is expected to be enacted in the current Session. Accordingly, the promoters of this Bill are content to agree
  896
  to the amendments on the ground that the powers in the Bill are otiose, to repeat the word used by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  I am sorry that amendment No. 9 is not acceptable because it would remove from the Bill the power to form a means of access to Railway street at point A8, as shown on the deposited plans. The power to make an alternative access is being sought by the BR board in the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill, which was deposited in Parliament during this Session. If that Bill is enacted to include that power, the board has acknowledged that it would not then need to make the access at point A8. At this stage it would be premature for the Bill to be amended as proposed since it would not then confer on the board the complete package of powers that are necessary to construct the access point.
  The board is prepared to give an undertaking to Parliament at this stage that, if the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill is enacted in a form authorising the board to construct an alternative access on to York way at point A27, as shown in the plans deposited in connection with the No. 2 Bill, it will not exercise the power proposed in this Bill to construct the means of access on to Railway street at point A8. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
  Amendment No. 10 is not acceptable either. Its effect would be that the board would not have the power temporarily to stop up or open up the surface of Balfe street. Presumably the amendment was tabled—naturally enough—for the protection of the constituents of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who are owners and occupiers of properties in Balfe street and who are to be affected by works at the rear of their properties. It is possible to construct the Balfe street portion of work 13—that is, the sewer—by tunnelling, but it should be understood that some opening up will still be necessary in some places. That is why this provision is vital. Obviously, the board regrets any inconvenience to the owners and occupiers of properties in Balfe street, but the power to open up the street is essential to enable the board to carry out the works required for the diversion of the main sewer.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has asserted that it is necessary for the board to be able to dig up parts of Balfe street in order to open up for the works, even if the sewer is tunnelled. Is he saying that, in order to construct the tunnel, it is necessary to dig up the surface of the road? That is not credible. Or is he saying that there may be some other purpose in digging up Balfe street? If so, it would be helpful to know exactly what purpose the board has in mind.
  Mr. Waller: As I understand it, most of the work originally intended to be carried out by opening up much of the length of the street is now to be carried out in tunnelling, but it is necessary to have access to that tunnelling work. That is why there needs to be some opening up of the street.
  In evidence given before the Select Committee, the duration of the portion of works affecting Balfe street was estimated at about nine weeks. There will be disturbance during those nine weeks but I submit that that is a relatively short period considering that the entire works required for the King's Cross project will take a number of years to be brought to fruition.

  897
  I have been able to accept two amendments, which I hope will be to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, and I have been able to give him one assurance, which I hope that he will welcome. I am sorry that I cannot go further, but I am sure that he will understand that the BR board has been anxious to accommodate him as far as it lies within its power to do so.
  Mr. Chris Smith rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Keighley is the bearer of partially good news. The good news is to be welcomed, but before discussing the amendments that he has accepted, I wish to deal with amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
  The hon. Gentleman said in connection with amendment No. 9—the deletion of access point A8—that, if British Rail were not given the necessary powers in this Bill, its powers would be incomplete, but that it was seeking alternative arrangements, and that, if they went ahead, it would not want to proceed with A8. The hon. Gentleman phrased his undertaking extremely carefully, however. He gave us an undertaking that access point A8 would not be used and the powers conferred by the Bill in respect of that access point would not be invoked if access point A27, off York way, were given approval.
  We are not talking only about British Rail's alternative access point off York way—A27: we are talking also about other proposed access points off York way, which the local residents have proposed as better alternatives to A27. I hope that the undertaking that has been given by the hon. Member for Keighley applies not only to A27, but to any other access point off York way that might in due course be agreed between British Rail and the objectors to the Bill.
  I am disappointed by what the hon. Member for Keighley said about amendment No. 10. I remain unconvinced and puzzled by his statement that, despite the fact that the sewer along the Balfe street line can be tunnelled, there will still need to be some access from the surface down to the tunnelled sewer. Knowing that Balfe street is not particularly long—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows this also—I must confess that I find it difficult to see why it is necessary to gain access from the surface of the middle of a relatively short street when one is tunnelling from one end of the street to the other. But that is what the hon. Gentleman has said; it is what British Rail handed him a note to say.
  I hope that that point will be reconsidered in due course. If there is no genuine need to get from the surface to the tunnel in Balfe street, there should be no need to dig up that street and to make the lives of my constituents even more of a nightmare than would otherwise be the case.
  The hon Member for Keighley betrayed the fallacy of that argument when he said, "What is nine weeks of disturbance compared to the overall period of disturbance that people in the King's Cross area will have to put up with?" That simply reveals how cheaply British Rail is treating the lives and the quality of life of the people who live in the King's Cross area. The people of Balfe street will have to put up with possibly upwards of eight years of
  898
  constant work immediately outside their homes. As I explained in our debate a couple of weeks ago, much of that work—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when discussions have taken place on the building of the Jubilee line through various expensive and salubrious parts of London, there has been the most detailed consideration of disturbance, including that caused to Parliament square where some of the works will be carried out? However, the House is apparently proposing to force eight years of disturbance on my hon. Friend's constituents in Balfe street and to do so in this cavalier fashion. Should not British Rail have a bit more consideration for the local people who have grown up and lived with the sound of the railway station and created a decent community around it, but will now see all that torn apart?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I welcome his support on that point. The residents of Balfe street are prime among the people who will be affected by the works. As I have said, the works will continue for eight years—seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That work will take place right outside people's homes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley would not feel particularly happy if such work were to be undertaken next door to his home for eight years.
  The hon. Member for Keighley said, in effect, "These people will have to put up with eight years' worth of work, so what's another nine weeks?" It is nine weeks of even more intense noise and disturbance because not only will the back of their homes be being pounded by piledrivers, bulldozers, digging and building but the front of their homes will be pounded by the access works that are required for the sewers. My constituents should not have to put up with this extra work, especially as the hon. Gentleman has not made the case that the work is necessary.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the personal lives of people affected by this? An elderly constituent of mine with a heart condition applied to the local authority for rehousing and, last year, I was delighted to be able to tell him that he had been offered permanent accommodation in a council property in Balfe street. I wonder about the safety of this person. I thought that I had got him safely rehoused but now he is faced with eight years of work going on outside the house in which he thought that he would live for the rest of his days.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many people have lived in Balfe street for many years. Others have moved in recently because there is good quality accommodation created over many years by the London borough of Islington. The lives of those people will be affected by the work set out in the Bill and amendment No. 10 would make things just a little easier for them, if that is possible. I do not believe that British Rail requires access from street level down to the tunnel if it is able to tunnel along the sewer. That may need to be considered further in another place.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley has accepted amendments Nos. 7 and 8. That is not much of a concession, because these works are anyway included in another Bill. Nonetheless, we wish the authority for these

  899
  works Godspeed on to the statute book. I hope that the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill will reach the statute book soon. When it does so, there will be no need to include works 01 and 014 in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree to amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 20, line 50 leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 21.
  No. 8, in page 22, leave out lines 28 to 33.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Smith: I shall not trespass on the time of the House by rehearsing some of the arguments that we have made in the many debates on the Bill about the rightness or otherwise of King's Cross as the location for the second international station. I have made my view clear on a number of occasions. I do not believe that it is the right location, although I fully understand the views and wishes of colleagues representing constituencies to the north, who wish for good-quality connections from the north via an international station to the channel tunnel. I share that objective, but I question whether King's Cross is the right location.
  I accept that there is an honest disagreement between my hon. Friends and myself in that regard, but I do not believe that King's Cross can cope with an extra 15 million passengers every year. Anyone who has travelled through King's Cross will know that station is already the most overcrowded interchange—both below and above ground —in London. To impose that scale of extra passenger load on an already overcrowded facility would create enormous problems for the immediate area and the passengers who attempt to use that station.
  I have frequently argued that case, and still hold to it —but the House has shown in several votes that it takes a different view, and believes that King's Cross is the right location for the second international station. I hope, however, that the Government and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—soon to become members of the Government—accept that, even if they think that King's Cross is the right location in principle, that does not mean that every jot and tittle of British Rail's specific proposals offers the best way of achieving that objective.
  In our debate two weeks ago, I raised the specific issue of the Bill's buffer zone provision, which seeks to ensure that those living in the immediate area of the proposed station will be protected when the works are undertaken. I subsequently exchanged correspondence with British Rail's solicitor, Mr. Osborne, about the properties on the east side of Northdown street, which were not included in the specific buffer zone—that is, the area protected by British Rail's agreement to the Committee's requirements.
  I argued that British Rail had failed fully to fulfil its undertaking to the Committee, but its solicitor—to whom I am grateful for replying so promptly—replied that it had done so. He sticks to his original assertion that properties on the east side of Northdown street do not need to be included in the buffer zone.
  Having expressed a belief that he was still right in principle, the solicitor to British Rail concluded his letter to me of 28 January:
  "However, as a concession to you"— a concession to me personally, that is—
  900
  "we will extend the buffer zone to include properties with a frontage onto so much of the east side of Northdown street as is situated between Pentonville Road and Collier Street."
  That is a welcome concession, and I am grateful to British Rail.
  We should consider the general question of what the proposals will cost. It is all very well to pass a private Bill and then to think that the job is done, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out earlier—unless we can be certain that the Government will come up with the money that will enable British Rail to undertake the work, we may find, having spent three years debating the Bill and waited several more months for the other place to debate it, that there is no money to finance that work.
  As we all know, when the station was first mooted, the estimate of the costs was about £400 million or £500 million. That was bad enough, but British Rail's most recent estimates—and they are now several months old —mention a total cost of some £1.4 billion. That amount is made up of £610 million for the facilities for channel tunnel and Kent commuter services, £220 million for Thameslink and £570 million for the other works—including the new passenger concourse, new lines into St. Pancras and railway works to facilitate the development of the London Regeneration Consortium land.
  At the end of last week, I wrote to the hon. Member for Keighley to ask whether an updated estimate had been produced, relating specifically to the railway works included in the Bill. I have received no response from the hon. Gentleman; he may wish to enlighten us now. For the moment, we have only that enormous figure of £1.4 billion. We know that the Government enthusiastically support the Bill, because they are unofficially whipping to ensure that it is passed. We are entitled to ask the Government whether, in their enthusiastic support for the Bill, they are aware of the enormous magnitude of its financial implications.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is referring in part to the article in the Evening Standard of Monday 27 January headed "Chunnel doubts grow over King's Cross". The article states that the costs
  "have escalated"—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the King's Cross Railways Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Banks: The article states:
  "estimates of the project's cost have escalated from £457 million to £1.4 billion"—
  the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend—and that it is possible that the scheme will not go ahead. Under those circumstances, I ask him whether it would be wise for the House to proceed with the Bill tonight. Before he answers, and in order to assist all hon. Members, perhaps he will say whether, like me, he wants to press the Bill to a vote at the end of Third Reading?
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for drawing my attention to the article in the Evening

  901
  Standard. I am indeed minded to seek a vote on Third Reading at the end of what I hope will be a relatively brief debate.
  The issue of finance raised in the Evening standard article to which my hon. Friend draws attention is extremely important. The Government are fond of asking where the money is coming from, but they are supporting a project which, according to old estimates which will probably have to be updated, will cost £1.4 billion. However, the Government do not appear to be currently giving any commitment to provide funds or even to give British Rail the necessary borrowing authority.
  The railways division of the Department of Transport wrote a letter to one of my constituents, Mr. R. H. Keynes, of Keystone crescent, whose home will be directly affected by the works. My constituent had sought assurances from the Minister about the financing of the proposed station. The Department of Transport replied:
  "Turning to your letter to Mr. Freeman, I cannot answer your detailed questions about the financing of the station, as we have yet to see a full, up-to-date, case on this from BR." The letter continued:
  "The answers to your specific questions to the Minister, are, therefore, that we have seen a certain amount of information on the cost of the King's Cross project"—
  we should like to know what that certain amount of
  information is—
  "and the projected revenues before giving consent to the deposit of the Bill."
  That was three years ago—the Bill was deposited in 1988. A lot of time has elapsed, there has been a lot of inflation, many cost recalculations, and many changes in the route to get to King's Cross, and many other considerations, such as the creation of Stratford as a major interchange, have intervened in the meantime. The Department of Transport goes on:
  "But the project has altered considerably since"—
  the Department admits that—
  "and a lot of that information is no longer current, particularly on the revenue side. We do not therefore know at this stage whether the station will meet the Government's investment criteria."
  In other words, not only do we not have in front of us an exact cost for the works that are being voted through in this Bill—we have to go on the basis of an outdated figure of £1.4 billion, which is in itself an enormous amount—but the Government are saying that they do not have the foggiest idea whether the amount involved will accord with their investment criteria. The Government are dragooning their troops to push the Bill through the House despite the fact that they do not have the faintest idea how they or British Rail will pay for it. That is something of which we ought to be extremely wary.
  Mr. Corbyn: During the passage of this Bill, my hon. Friend has made himself an expert on the subject. That being the case, perhaps he can help me. If British Rail goes ahead with the building of this station at a cost of £1.4 billion, what sort of income will it need to secure from the capital developments to service the loan, bearing in mind the fact that the Minister has often said that the Government will put no money into the project?
  Mr. Smith: If British Raik were seeking to finance this project entirely out of the relatively small amount of revenue that will come to the station from the operation of the services and from the surrounding property
  902
  development, it would find that impossible. Even with the property market at its height—I do not need to remind the House that it is not at the height at the moment—British Rail would not be able to cover the £billion capital cost out of its profit from property development or out of revenue from running the trains.
  Of course, that is not a debate that the Government have yet entered into. They have not even set out their parameters for the financing of the station. The only figure that they have been prepared to come up with is bad enough—the initial cost of all the preparatory work involved in making drawings, hiring expensive barristers to put the Bill through the House, and so on.
  Last week, I tabled a written question about precisely these costs:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds are being made available to British Rail for design and other work in connection with planning and preparation of the King's Cross project."
  The reply that I was given is as follows:
  "The external finance limit for BR next year will be £2,041 million. This will allow BR to spend £66 million on design and preparatory work for the King's Cross, Thameslink 2000 and channel tunnel rail link projects."—[Official Report, 27 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 404–5.]
  It is worth pointing out that Thameslink 2000 has been put back a year. The Bill will be deposited next November instead of last November. Therefore, the great bulk of the money to which that answer refers is for the King's Cross and channel tunnel rail link projects. We know that the Government have already given British Rail approval to spend £66 million—an awful lot of money—on the preparatory work. That, of course, makes even more important the question of the ultimate financing. If the Government are prepared to put £66 million into the work now, as well as dragooning hon. Members to push this Bill through the House, they must have—certainly they ought to have—a clearer idea of how they will behave in relation to the ultimate funding of the project when British Rail wants to start work.
  Apart from the issue of financing the work—
  Mr. Corbyn: The question of financing is important. As the future funding of the project is so uncertain and vague, are we to assume either that there is a private understanding between British Rail and the Government that the Government will pay the capital cost, or that the capital cost will be taken from other British Rail capital investment programmes, such as rail electrification?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. I simply remind the House of some of the items of expenditure which British Rail seeks to undertake. All are extremely worthwhile projects, including the upgrading of the west coast main line at a cost of £750 million and the electrification of the midlands main line at a cost of £315 million.
  Mr. Cryer: I caution my hon. Friend about using those figures. The east coast main line has been electrified, according to figures provided by the Minister, at a cost of £470 million. At 1990–91 prices, the original cost of the west coast main line electrification in the 1960s was £1,900 million. In other words—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with the Third Reading debate.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All those points have been covered—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to start challenging my ruling.
  Mr. Smith: I certainly—
  Mr. Cryer: The King's Cross development may draw money away from the projects that my hon. Friend has listed. The Government figures for investment, although accurate, represents investment on the cheap and not the full cost required for a decent job.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend may be right. I do not claim to be an expert on the detailed financing of particular aspects of railway work, but I know that there are many useful and worthwhile projects which British Rail could undertake. Apart from the projects that I have mentioned, there is the electrification of the trans-Pennine routes, the electrification of the Perth-Inverness line, the modernisation of the London, Tilbury and Southend line, Thameslink 2000 and the potential modernisation of the north Kent line.
  Those are important and worthwhile projects, and we must ask the Government where the money for them will come from, especially if £1.4 billion is gobbled up by the proposals for King's Cross.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I know that my hon. Friend realises that many north-west and north-east Members have been careful not to intervene in the debate because we understand the strength of feeling in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that there is another calculation which he has not mentioned. What will happen to all those projects if none of them has access to the channel tunnel and to the rapid movement of freight and passengers around the London area? Without the King's Cross terminal, there may be real problems.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is mistaken in including freight in her remarks, because the Bill contains no proposals on freight. The proposal is not for freight traffic to go through King's Cross. That issue is completely separate from the Bill.
  Precisely this question was raised at an earlier stage in our discussions, and I pointed out then that the Government had not come clean at all on the issue of freight and what would happen to freight. I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in wanting to see not just passenger traffic but freight able to make a direct contact with the channel tunnel from all parts of the country, especially the north and the north-west. I share her desire to ensure that the channel tunnel becomes a tool for economic regeneration around the country.
  This Bill, however, has nothing whatever to do with the movement of goods from the north of the country to the channel tunnel. It does have something to do with the movement of passengers from the north of the country to the channel tunnel, but, as I have already explained, I do not believe that King's Cross is essential to achieve that end. However, even if one takes the view that King's Cross is essential, there are better and more appropriate ways of building and developing a new station at King's Cross than the one that British Rail has effectively forced upon
  904
  us. Considerations of finance are important in relation to that, because I do not believe that British Rail has to build an underground station in order to achieve its purpose.
  What impact will the proposed station have on its environment and especially on traffic? According to British Rail and the Department of Transport's own published estimates, the new low-level station will double the number of rail passengers passing through the King's Cross station complex during the morning peak hours. It will double the number of vehicles that will come into King's Cross or St. Pancras during the morning peak hours.
  The station and office development together will increase the traffic on Euston road during the evening peak hours by 70 per cent. Anyone who has tried travelling in a bus or car on Euston road in the evening rush hour will know that it is bad enough at present; to impose an additional 70 per cent. of traffic on that major artery will cause enormous congestion. That takes no account of the 100 per cent. increase in traffic which is likely to occur in the morning peak hours.
  British Rail and the Government must therefore take some notice, at the very least, of the traffic implications of the Bill. It is all very well to say, as I am sure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) will say—because it is what British Rail has said for months—that the great majority of passengers coming into King's Cross on the channel tunnel trains will go to further destinations by public transport, but there will also be many hundreds of thousands of passengers in a year who will want to be met by friends in cars, who will want to get on to coaches if they are in large parties or who will want to take taxis.
  The traffic implications of what is proposed are enormous, and I hope that British Rail and the Government will take cognisance of the fact that we do not want to create around King's Cross a traffic jam far worse than anything that we have to put up with at present.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend knows King's Cross well. I am not aware of any proposal to upgrade the Piccadilly or Victoria lines, which carry the majority of passengers to and from King's Cross. If those lines cannot cope during the rush hour at present, how will they cope with double the traffic?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friends makes a valid point. British Rail has consistently argued that people will get off the channel tunnel trains and get on to one of the five underground lines going through King's Cross station, and that that will somehow solve the problem of increased passenger traffic. It will not. Even if a new underground concourse is built—that is one of the proposals that is being advanced—nowhere in the Bill is it proposed that a single extra train should run on the Victoria, Piccadilly or Northern lines, or on any of the other lines that run through King's Cross. The tube trains are already packed during the rush hour, and there is no proposal in the Bill to ensure that extra services are provided. Both below ground and above it, the traffic implications will be absolutely massive.
  I have explained why I think that the Government should come clean on the financing of the project and why the traffic and congestion implications of the proposals will be enormously painful for the King's Cross area. In addition to all that, my constituents will have to put up with untold damage to their lives, homes, shops and other properties—both immediately and in the years to come.

  905
  It is worth reminding the House what the Bill, if enacted in its present form, would involve: the loss of 83 homes, the displacement of 326 residents, the demolition of four listed buildings, the destruction of well over 10 acres of property in two conservation areas, the destruction of a two-acre inner-city nature reserve of great value to the local community, the loss of 168 workplaces providing 1,620 jobs, the loss of 58 shops, 38 of which provide key services to local people, the diversion of a major traffic artery for a period of three years, a doubling of the number of rail passengers and a doubling of the number of cars and taxis coming to King's Cross and St. Pancras during the morning peak hour.
  In addition to all that, the project will involve six years of construction work on the station and two years of construction work on the post-station development. That work will be in progress 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will be taking place immediately beside, behind and in front of the homes of a large number of my constituents.
  Sincerely though I respect the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that their constituents can benefit from access to the channel tunnel—I have no desire to stand in the way of their efforts to make that wish come true—I urge that the interests of my constituents, who will have to put up with untold misery for an extended eight-year period, should be given closer consideration than BR has given them hitherto. BR could have come to us at the outset and said, "King's Cross has to be the location for a whole series of railway reasons, but let us talk about how best to ensure that the building of the station has minimal impact on local people and their lives."
  If it had done that, we might have had a sensible dialogue with British Rail, but it did not. It came forward with these proposals, and it has attempted to bludgeon them through the House. It was, quite rightly, fiercely criticised by the Select Committee for the way in which it behaved in trying to get its proposals through the Committee and the House. It has not listened on a whole series of points, even though I am very grateful that amendments have been agreed to in the course of our debate this evening.
  I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill tonight, but my intention is not to deprive the north of access to the channel tunnel. That is the last thing in my mind. My intention is to try to persuade British Rail and the Government to take more reasonable notice of the needs, requirements and quality of life of my constituents.
  10.26 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am grateful for the opportunity to record the fact that the Government support the Bill and encourage all hon. Members to vote in favour of Third Reading, so that the Bill can proceed to another place for further consideration.
  The Government support British Rail's plan to have the terminus of a high speed rail link at King's Cross. They also support the plans of London Underground to have, under the powers of this Bill, extensive work carried out at King's Cross to improve facilities there and also to
  906
  improve commuter services—the Thameslink services which run north-south through King's Cross. These are all laudable aims.
  The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to an article in the Evening Standard. May I make it plain, as my Department has done consistently over the past three years of consideration of the Bill in the House, that this is indeed a mammoth project, that the appraisals of such a project inevitably change over time as the project changes in costs and revenue. It is not possible to come to a firm conclusion about this project in financial terms at the moment.
  British Rail remains convinced that, the appraisal tests that we have set can be met; that is to say, for InterCity and for the international services, an 8 per cent. return. For the social services, that is for Thameslink and for the underground services in London, wider social benefits are taken into account, such as road decongestion, social regeneration and economic benefits to the City of London through such construction.
  British Rail remains convinced that, when it puts the detailed investment proposition to us, once planning permission is obtained, it will pass the appraisal test. The House would not expect me to give any assurances about the timing of construction and the extent to which the investment appraisal test will be met. But the Government are committed to the Bill. We believe very strongly that planning permission should be given to permit construction to start, to bring benefits not only to the metropolis but to the north-east, the north-west and other parts of the country to which rail services will run from King's Cross to other great cities in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves this subject of the cost of the development, could he be more specific about it? British Rail has given a figure of £1.4 billion for the construction of the station complex. The Minister has said that there will be appraisal tests for the rail linkages in and out of it and their viability in return on capital, and so forth. He has not said what return on capital will have to be attained from the station in order to service the loan to construct the station, unless he intends to make a very large Government grant available for that construction.
  Mr. Freeman: I hoped that I had made it quite plain that there are several different constituent parts of the project. For the non-commercial parts of the operation, the Government's present procedure for funding such investments, for example by Network SouthEast or London Underground, is to take into account, where appropriate, the wider non-user benefits—I gave the House examples of such non-user benefits—and to finance London Underground by grant and British Rail by passenger service obligation grant, which is a revenue grant, and then by loan sanction permission to borrow. The revenue impact for social railway investment is met by increases in the passenger service obligation grant. If the hon. Gentleman wants to table a question or write to me, I shall be glad to enlarge upon that.
  As I have said, the Government support the Bill. We think that it is appropriate not only that King's Cross should be the terminus for a rail link but that underground and Network SouthEast facilities should be improved at that station. We urge the House to give the Bill a Third reading.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Snape: I, too, will be extremely brief. I believe that there are objectives that should be endorsed, not because the Bill favours one part of the country at the expense of another but because an international terminal, as well as a through station, at King's Cross will benefit the whole country. Indeed, I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends, that from a railway point of view there is no alternative to King's Cross.
  That is not to say that the Minister has not left questions unanswered, not least the one just put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We are confused about the financing of this great development. The Evening Standard article, to which he referred, emphasises his confusion. The terms in which he wrote to various organisations, talking about commercial viability or otherwise, also caused confusion.
  The station will benefit not just international passengers. There will be benefits for domestic rail services to which the Minister referred. None of those benefits—neither those for the international services nor their domestic counterparts—could come from building the terminal anywhere else, such as Stratford or the other places which have been mentioned. Because of the geographical location of King's Cross and its easy connections to other parts of the country, it is not just the obvious choice but the only choice.
  I have been involved for many years with the channel tunnel project as a whole and its associated terminal at King's Cross. I think that I am the only hon. Member to have served on two Select Committees on the channel tunnel. During the period in which the Conservatives have been in power it was said, first, that we needed only one terminal, Waterloo. Then it was decided that we needed two terminals.
  Originally, the Government and British Rail management said that there was no need for a dedicated rail route from the channel ports, and that we could manage with the existing railway infrastructure. Then it was said that we needed a dedicated rail route, which would pass through Kent, and which would obviously affect the prospects of some Conservative Members in marginal constituencies. Despite the need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money on property acquisition, overnight we had the proposal for an eastern route into Stratford—a defeat for the Secretary of State, if we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, who wanted the original route.
  The confusion about the project has been made worse by the Government's vacillation and indecision, and also by their lack of answers to my hon. Friends about where the finance for the project will come from.
  Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is right in the point that he is putting to the Minister. He will recall that, when British Rail proposed that Waterloo should be the first channel tunnel station, not only did it say that one station was sufficient and that it did not need a second one but, in the case which it put to the House of Lords during the discussions, it said specifically that King's Cross was not an appropriate location for a second station. British Rail was ruling out King's Cross at that stage, yet two or three years later BR tells us that King's Cross is essential.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend underlines the confusion which has reigned over the project, certainly during the past decade and probably for some time before that.
  908
  On the point about additional traffic the Minister overlooked the fact that the new terminal will be a combination of King's Cross and St. Pancras, which, from a railway point of view, is considerably under-utilised. I have no figures on the throughput of passengers in those stations' heyday, but I hazard a guess that considerably more passengers now use the combined stations.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Snape: With respect, I shall not give way because my hon. Friend has not been present for much of the debate. I know that he wants to speak on Third Reading and no doubt he will make his point later.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North agrees that the total number of passengers using King's Cross and St. Pancras in those stations' heyday was considerably more than the number who use the combined stations today. I am worried when people say that it is fine to live next to a railway station but that one must never use it to its full capacity. That does not appear to be sensible—
  Mr. Corbyn: Who says that?
  Mr. Snape: Various pressure groups make that point about both the London terminuses. They are apparently quite relaxed about living next to railway stations, provided they are not used to their full capacity. I neither understand nor share that view.
  I realise that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in other parts of the country are still waiting to hear something that was implied during the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) says that the Bill has been railroaded through the House, but I remind him that it is three long years since it was introduced. If that is a railroad, it is pretty slow, and I would not look forward to travelling on it.
  None of us believes that a real alternative to King's Cross exists, although we are not particularly happy about British Rail's proposals. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury an undertaking that we are committed to a terminal at King's Cross, but we are not necessarily committed to the expensive and grandiose project, which seems to depend on property values that were optimistic three or four years ago and are hopelessly pessimistic now. I hope that the Minister will attempt, in his final few weeks in office, to clarify exactly which part of the station the Government are prepared to support financially. So far, an answer on that has been lacking from him and other Ministers.
  After three years, it is time to draw this saga to a close. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Bill, because the principle of a terminal station and an international channel tunnel station at King's Cross cannot be challenged.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Waller: I shall not strain the good will of hon. Members who have supported the Bill by speaking for more than a few moments. I should like to speak longer, because the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the losses that he envisages would be incurred by the development of the station at King's Cross, and if I had the time I should love to expand on the economic benefits that could be achieved

  909
  in employment terms, the environmental benefits that would accrue to the area and the safety benefits that would be brought about by the Fennell provisions in the Bill.
  However, I shall desist from following that course and merely state that the co-ordinated package of works in the Bill will make King's Cross a first-class interchange between international trains and inter-city services from the east midlands, the north and Scotland, as well as to and from Thameslink and London Underground services. With the short transfer to Euston station, passengers will have an interchange to and from the north-west and the midlands.
  The Bill will also provide for the expansion of the successful Thameslink service and create new cross-London routes. It will enable the promoters greatly to improve capacity and the safety of passenger flows at the London underground station. Several hon. Gentlemen referred to the problems that will result from the increased throughput of passengers. However, the concourse will be enlarged and the facilities will be compatible with the new British Rail station, which will be able to handle many more passengers.
  There has been a highly informed debate on the King's Cross Bill since the day my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) moved the Second Reading in May 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was originally associated with the Bill. He has spoken with authority on other transport-related Bills. It took an historic 53 days to get the Bill through Committee, under the expert chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who was present on the Front Bench today. It is curious that those two hon. Gentlemen were snatched away from their work on the Bill to enter the Whips Office.
  I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, not least the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who has stoutly defended the interests of his constituents as he sees them. I also thank all those other hon. Members who have supported the Bill loyally on a number of occasions because they believe that it is in the best interests of the country.
  I now ask for the Bill to be allowed to move swiftly to another place. I commend it to the House.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: I must tell the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) so graciously remarked, that I was not here for part of the debate. I had a prior engagement that I could not break, but I was present for the latter one and half hours of the debate.
  I intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I must put on record the appreciation felt by many people in the borough of Islington of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He has sought to protect his constituency and the environment of London by arguing for some sane planning principles for the construction of a major railway station of national importance.
  The project should not be pushed through the House by means of the private Bill procedure, which is wholly inappropriate. The Government appear to hide behind British Rail when it suits them and behind the private Bill
  910
  procedure and financial gobbledegook when it suits them. They have not a clue about what they intend to do about the station.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has assiduously promoted this awful project. He has said that we may be approaching its final stage and that it is about to go to the other place. Is that really so? After all, the Minister has admitted that he does not know where the money for the project will come from. He is still thinking about that. He has had only three years to think about that, but, obviously, that is not long enough.
  The Minister is aware that land prices in London are falling. However, the entire finance for the project is supposed to come from the development of property in the area to the north of King's Cross. That proposition is simply not feasible because there is not enough money to be made from that property. Therefore, the money for the project must either come from Government grant—the Minister's predecessors set their faces against such grants for major railway construction—or money must be taken away from other BR capital projects. However, those projects are dear to the hearts of many people.
  Does BR intend to spend £1.4 billion on the construction of the station and £400 million on the construction of the link between Stratford and King's Cross in tunnel? The Secretary of State has confirmed that that link must be in tunnel. We are talking about the expenditure of £2 billion on a railway project. However, even at the zenith of the London property boom, sufficient money could not have been raised from office development to the north of King's Cross.
  Those who think that we have heard the last of this subject should think again. I have a feeling that, in about a year, BR will quietly announce that it cannot afford the project after all. We will then end up with a half-baked rail network. A new line will run through Kent to an under-utilised and under-developed station in Stratford; all because BR is not prepared to allow it to be the major terminal. BR will be unable to afford the link through to King's Cross and Waterloo will be the inadequate terminal for channel tunnel trains for a long time until that new line through Kent is built. When that happens, some trains will go to Waterloo and some to Stratford. That will provide a totally unsatifactory link to the channel tunnel.
  Those colleagues who believe that those of us who are anti the development at King's Cross are anti the rest of the country should think again.
  We are arguing for a sane and sensible process of railway planning for major projects. British Rail has spent a great deal of money in the past three years on public relations and lobbying exercises and on printing super-glossy documents. One can hardly move around King's Cross for BR consultants stopping one in the street to explain what a good thing it would be to have one's house knocked down to make way for the station.
  That the channel tunnel will be built is obvious—it is happening. That the links with London will be built at some stage is less obvious—I hope that they will be. I urge colleagues to consider for a moment in whose interests this massive project is supposed to work. Many hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, seem to be labouring under the illusion that King's Cross will somehow aid the economic development of the north of England, and of Wales and Scotland, because it will improve freight transportation through to the channel tunnel. The development as proposed has nothing to do with freight

  911
  transport: it is a passenger terminal and station. Developing economic links between this country and France and the other European countries will not be achieved by building King's Cross station, because it does nothing for freight transport.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury ably discussed the effects on the area in detail. I can understand that some hon. Members are desperate to get the King's Cross development built because they think that it will speed their passage to a channel tunnel train and thence to Europe. Dedicated trains need not go though King's Cross if it is not the terminal. They can go around to Stratford and on from there. Non-dedicated trains—InterCity trains—would go to King's Cross and if the terminal was at Stratford passengers would have to transfer to Stratford.
  Non-dedicated trains coming from the north-west would go to Euston. Therein lies a problem. Everyone knows that it is not exactly next door to King's Cross or St. Pancras. That is thanks to the free-enterprise railway developments of the 1840s and 1850s—instead of developing a proper London terminal, several of them were developed. That problem remains with us to this day.
  British Rail talks grandly of a travelator running between Euston and King's Cross. When that was first proposed, it was forgotten that the Government were also building the British Library, which goes down five floors underground—a bit deep for a travelator, unless it is a big dipper sort of travelator. So that connection is not possible.
  How passengers, therefore, are to get from Euston to the new channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross is unclear, unless they are to walk or take a bus running through the traffic in Euston road. That serious problem has not been dealt with. Those in the north-west or the west of England who think that they will have a direct link to the channel tunnel terminal are wrong. But people in the west of England may well have a direct link into a channel tunnel station at Stratford if the crossrail construction goes ahead. All these issues seem to be passing the House by.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury argued reasonably for some environmental protection for his constituents around the station, but his arguments have been brushed aside as though he were obstructing national progress and singlehandedly holding up the economic boom that this country is thrusting towards. Would any hon. Member tolerate in his constituency, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for eight years, unrestricted work on a major construction site?
  This Bill is a Trojan horse for other major developments in other areas. If it is good enough for wealthy commuter areas of the country to have protection from motorway building contractors—traffic schemes, banking works and all the other improvements that they rightly demand and get—it is good enough for people in inner city areas to enjoy the same protection. Other hon. Members might care to reflect on those issues before allowing the scheme to go through.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that eight listed buildings would be destroyed. We are talking about an interesting and historic area. Damage would also be caused to the Camley street open space. That might seem totally irrelevant to those who come from the rolling acres of hunting country, but the Camley street open space is precious to the children
  912
  and young people who developed that land into a natural park. I know that it will be replaced under British Rail's proposals—and will be slightly larger in area—but hurt will be caused to people who put an awful lot of effort into the development.
  There is also the question of traffic and passenger usage of the area. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East pointed out that St. Pancras station is underutilised. I tried to intervene to agree with him on that point and to ask him to agree with me that one problem with British Rail and London Underground is that they seem to imagine that more and more passengers can be brought into the King's Cross-St. Pancras complex without doing anything about the shortage of space on the underground trains that will then take those passengers.
  It is no good bringing 15 million passengers a year into the King's Cross terminal unless there is some means of getting them away. If they cannot get on the Underground trains, they will go for a bus. If they cannot get on a bus, they will go for a taxi, but Euston road, Pentonville road and York way are already jammed, and that situation will get worse as a result of the development. That increase in traffic will lead to greater congestion and greater pollution, but apparently such things are of no concern to the planners behind the development or to the Government.
  I shall oppose the Third Reading. I have a feeling that we shall all be back here again in the not-too-distant future, thinking again about the whole question of the lack of planning of this country's rail network. At the heart of this debate is the lack of importance that this country attaches to its rail network. I am a strong supporter of the rail network and the railway system. We cannot maintain a railway system by insisting on financing it by constantly creaming off and selling its assets year after year, and by insisting that new developments are financed by property speculation on the part of the railway board. That is not the way to do it.
  We should take a leaf out of the books of other countries that have put large amounts of public investment into the railways, knowing that that will take traffic off the roads, reduce the level of air pollution and provide for a more efficient country. We are allowing some grandiose white elephant to be constructed around King's Cross without thinking of the implications for the rest of the country in terms of the loss of capital going into the project, the increase in traffic and pollution around the area and with the illusion that that somehow creates a better freight and passenger link to the continent, when we know that it will not.
  There is a viable alternative just down the line at Stratford, where there is a large amount of open space that could be developed into a major terminal. King's Cross will be a secondary terminal, and I have a feeling that we shall end up with second best all round.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Cryer: I want to express some reservations about the Bill, basically because of the Government's lack of gratitude, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has referred. I am very much in favour of what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to as a doubling of railway passengers. I wish that the number of railway passengers would increase, with a commensurate expansion of the railway network.

  913
  However, we are talking here only about railway passengers, not about a very important component of railway traffic, especially for the manufacturing industries of the north, which many of us represent—and that is freight. If we are to reverse the domination of our roads by heavy wagons and road lorries, we must do something about getting freight off the roads and on to rail, but the Bill does nothing about that.
  The Minister should have said that the Government are prepared to provide a guarantee, should the financial system on which British Rail depends fail to deliver. The Bart's hospital case—I cannot expand on that, because it is sub judice—has placed a major source of funds in peril, because the Government have forced British Rail to depend on development or property sales to provide the revenue to finance this £1.4 billion project.
  I shall not go into the components of that figure, because several other hon. Members have already put them on the record. However, I am concerned because this project, which many hon. Members have described as grandiose, may soak up investment funds for the provincial areas of British Rail into King's Cross. Other projects would be of greater advantage to the north and the provincial sector than this one, which will put £1.4 billion into the construction and covering of one of the largest holes in the ground in Europe.
  For example, the electrification of the midland main line out of St. Pancras is not one of the works in the Bill, but it would cost only £400 million under the rather cheap methods that has been imposed on British Rail, which is required to find an 8 per cent. return on capital investment. That has led to cuts in capital investment, which has meant that the east coast mainline electrification is becoming a byword for inconsistency and low levels of operation in adverse weather conditions.
  Rather than supporting the Bill, we should be urging the Government to authorise the electrification of the midland main line up through Sheffield to Leeds. If a crossrail link were built in Bradford, for what would be a tiny amount of capital investment when compared to the £1.4 billion to be spent on King's Cross, there could be then be through trains running up the electrified midland main line, to Bradford interchange and across to Foster square and then up to Settle and Carlisle, and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—the old London, Midland and Scottish scheme.
  That would make use of that great main line, the capacity of which is vastly underutilised. My fear is that the investment to develop these routes to the north will not be available, as the Government will not give British Rail the finance that is needed because everything will have gone on the King's Cross project.
  Another scheme that would be of great advantage to my constituency would be the electrification of the trans-Pennine route, from Leeds up to the Bradford interchange and then across to Halifax and through to the Lancashire capital of Manchester and across to Liverpool. At the moment, it is diesel-operated and the commuter services are overcrowded. More investment is needed. Despite interventions, the Minister has told us nothing about the effect of this investment on the rest of British Rail.
  914
  I want electrification of the trans-Pennine route, because it would be a real boost to the north. It will be eight years before the King's Cross route is finished, and therefore at least eight years before the north sees any benefit. Furthermore, freight, which is already decreasing fast on British Rail, will be further marginalised.
  The Government are giving no incentives to encourage freight to return from road to rail. We should be looking carefully at the alternatives to see which would be of most benefit to the north in the short term, rather than allowing the development of a grandiose white elephant in King's Cross, which will soak up money and will not be of any benefit for 10 years. We need Government action now, and I am disappointed with their lack of response. It simply is not good enough.
  The Minister ought to know that the money is not available to finance a major development on the basis that he outlined tonight. Part of that basis—apart from the public spending obligation that he mentioned—was increased property values, but that trend has been reversed. Higher property values were the basis on which British Rail stated that no direct public expenditure would be required for the King's Cross development.
  I have grave reservations about that scheme, and in common with others of my hon. Friends, I want to see the development of an important and progressive rail network. I doubt whether the Bill will provide the basis for that.
  11 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I address my remarks to my hon. Friends, who ought to ask themselves whether, if we were in government, we would approach the matter in this way. The answer must be no. They must know in their hearts of hearts that we would not have used the private Bill procedure to determine a project of such significance to the nation as the construction of the second channel tunnel station.
  It distresses me that British Rail has divided this side of the House. It is not a matter of arguing for Islington or for Stratford, but of what the whole country wants. It is manifest from recent press stories that, because the property market has collapsed and the budget is out of hand, the project will not go ahead.
  I make the point to my hon. Friends that an attempt to destroy the Bill is being made not because of narrow constituency interests but because the decision in question is too important to consider under the private Bill procedure. We are not arguing the south versus the north, but we ask our hon. Friends to consider that a strategic decision should be taken in a different fashion. That is why I cannot support the Bill's Third Reading.
  This issue will return to the House again before long, so even at this late moment I urge my hon. Friends also to vote against Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 5.

  Division No. 59]

  [11.02 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Alton, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Anderson, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Barron, Kevin

  915

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Foster, Derek

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Franks, Cecil

  Blunkett, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butler, Chris

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carr, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chope, Christopher

  Irvine, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Couchman, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Crowther, Stan

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knowles, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Knox, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Lightbown, David

  Dover, Den

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Sir Peter

  McCartney, lan

  Enright, Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Maclean, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fearn, Ronald

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McMaster, Gordon

  916

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mans, Keith

  Snape, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Nicol

  Martlew, Eric

  Stern, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mills, lain

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Gavin

  Moss, Malcolm

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  O'Brien, William

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thorne, Neil

  Paice, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Tracey, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Trippier, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Warren, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Prescott, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Raffan, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redmond, Martin

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Riddick, Graham

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Roger Knapman and

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Alistair Burt.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mr. Chris Smith and

  Nellist, Dave

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Uncertificated Securities
Postponed proceeding on Question, That the draft Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th December, resumed.
11.13 pm
The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Before the interruption at 7 pm, I was saying that there are a number of measures to help small shareholders—the complaints commissioner, the compensation scheme and a system allowing small shareholders to lock up their holdings and ask that they are not released unless they give special permission. I shall be happy to respond to any points made, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I commend the regulations to the House.
11.14 pm
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the Minister's short introduction of these regulations governing stock exchange transactions. We welcome the regulations.
We have been waiting many years for the legal underpinning of TAURUS, which is at last provided in the paperless electronic transfer system announced in legislative form today. To be precise, we have been waiting for 13 years. It is a full 13 years since the Group of 30 first set down internationally agreed standards for settlement of share transactions, and it is a full 10 years since the London stock exchange formally responded with the concept of TAURUS.
The Opposition sincerely hope that tonight sees the end of the Government's procrastination in the implementation of TAURUS. We do not want to have to sit through the experience of individuals at the stock exchange thinking of reasons for further delays. One's sympathy goes out to Peter Rawlins, the chief executive of the stock exchange, when he has to come up with excuse after excuse. The poor man is quoted as having said, when he had to announce further delays:
"This is another disappointing blow to our aspirations."
It is a relief that he will not have to come up with any more such remarks.
As I have said, we have waited 10 years for the Government and the stock exchange to come up with some practical proposals. Throughout the years, we have witnessed minimal progress but a lot of buck-passing to explain the delays to which we have been subjected. The stock exchange, in its polite, indirect fashion of briefing, has discreetly said that the delays are due to the Government's late legal advice and to the fact that the Government's drafting was behind schedule.
On the other hand, the less delicate and more heavy-handed briefing of the DTI explains that the delay is due to the Stock Exchange's lack of correct computerisation or the inadequacy of staffing levels. In any case, there has been bickering between the two bodies as to why the process has taken so long, why it has been delayed month by month and year by year, until we are now waiting for May 1993.
If there is a further delay—one seriously worries that there may be—neither the stock exchange nor the DTI will be blamed. This time there will be another target. We shall be waiting for the annual general meetings at which companies will have to pass the regulations. No doubt the shareholders will be blamed for any further delays. It has
918
been a sad tale of delay and procrastination. One has been waiting so long for the Government and the stock exchange to come up with some practical proposals that one is tempted to welcome almost anything as better than nothing. DTI Ministers must be grateful to the Prime Minister for delaying the election long enough to allow these regulations to stand as the Government's final memorial.
In a sense, it no longer matters who is to blame—the stock exchange or the DTI. It is petty squabbling. At this late stage, we are just relieved to see the regulations going through. But at another level, the delay is in some ways a good case study of the problems that we have seen at the DTI over the years.
This is an example of the lack of leadership, the lack of drive, that we have seen in Minister after Minister. We have had Secretary of State after Secretary of State—as many as we have had years. The TAURUS delay is indicative of that kind of lack of management and lack of direction. That is why the DTI has come to be known in some quarters as the Department of total inertia.
I want to emphasise this point, which is not a cheap debating point.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Exactly.
Ms. Mowlam: If the hon. Member wants to intervene, I shall give him numerous other examples of the way in which the DTI reacts to a problem that has become too large to ignore. The Department does not take the initiative in solving problems. TAURUS is an example of the way in which it lets problems fester year after year.
I want to make it clear that we are committed to the forging of a constructive partnership with the stock exchange, as with other parts of the financial sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) may laugh, but the partnership that we have seen over the years has resulted in arguments between Departments and the City. Institutions like the stock exchange and the DTI have had arguments.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest may snigger in disbelief, but if he goes to France and Germany he will find Governments that work in partnership with industry because they want to encourage an active leadership role as they move into the 1990s. That is what we want for the financial services industry in this country.
I shall emphasise the main criticisms or problems that we perceive, and I shall welcome the Minister's response to them. First, the Government have shown that they have no clear and strategic approach to financial services. Their approach to equity holding is a good example of that. We have heard the Minister argue in favour of wider share ownership when the Government have underpriced privatisation issues in the hope of attracting small investors.
The thrust of the TAURUS proposals that are before us is the same as that of the big-bang reforms because they will favour large transactions from institutional investors. The Minister has said that the Government are interested in helping and protecting the small investor, and he mentioned lock-up and other facilities, but that is surely going a point too far if the process of introducing TAURUS means that the small investor is lost. I have no doubt that the economies of scale will mean cost savings for the larger players while the smaller players will lose out.

919
I hope that the Minister will not lower himself by using the hypocritical argument that smaller investors can use their votes at annual general meetings, if they do not want to use TAURUS, to stop company directors dematerialising. As he and I well know, company directors need only twist the arms of institutional investors, with the result that they will have the 75 per cent. interest that they need to ride through AGMs. In other words, there will be a negative outcome for the small investor.
Given the scandals that we have seen in the City in financial services in the past few years, we are seeing the establishment of a parallel regulatory regime for the TAURUS system rather than integration into the structure of the Financial Services Act 1986. We have often seen that self-regulation, without any accountability to an outside authority such as the Securities and Investments Board, is courting trouble for the future. That is scarcely likely to appeal to overseas investors.
The Minister talked about the role of account holders, and the problems with the present regulatory structure are well illustrated in that context. If we are considering the fitness and properness of account holders, it is for the stock exchange to define them as fit and proper. I am sure that the Minister understands that, to avoid costly duplication, the stock exchange will be dependent on the self-regulatory bodies for the testing of "fit and proper". That means that the stock exchange will be dependent ultimately on outside sources for defining the fitness and properness of account holders.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House can envisage situations in which there will be disagreement between the stock exchange and the self-regulatory organisations over the quality and validity of different information. That is the result of the parallel structure of regulation that the Government propose.
Another criticism is that the compensation fund arrangements have not been properly structured. The Opposition argue that £250,000 is not a large enough sum in view of the transactions that are involved. Given the long debate that has taken place on compensation, it would seem that the same view is taken by many others. In May, when it was suggested that the level would be much higher, the Minister said that, in the event of something going wrong, there would be substantial compensation.
Since then—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—we have had the battle between lax regulation/high compensation and tight regulation/low compensation; and what we have ended up with this evening is both lax regulation and low compensation. That is one of the weaknesses that we see in the compensation fund arrangements before us tonight.
It also furthers some of the problems of the compensation schemes in the City for the various financial services that we have seen manifested in previous years, because, with the TAURUS compensation fund outside the investor compensation scheme, the present system forgoes the opportuity to draw on a wider pool of contributors and hence improve the management of risk.
Those are the main questions that we on this side have about the regulations. The regulations are complex. Some of the complexity of the legislation is lessened by the fact that some of the details, as I understand it, will be put in the new rule book that will not come before the House. The Secretary of State will agree to the stock exchange's new rule book for TAURUS operators, and it is important at this point to say that the next Secretary of State in the
920
Department will look at the rule book carefully; we want to ensure that it is clear and coherent. But we want no further delays in a system that has already waited so many years for its implementation.
TAURUS is essential to maintain London's position as the top financial centre of Europe. We worry that the delays of previous years have helped to call into question the role that the financial institutions perform. With the French systems up and running in the Paris Bourse and the German Government making a concerted effort to modernise Frankfurt, there is no room for complacency such as we have seen in the Department of Trade and Industry in years gone by. A Labour Government will not be encumbered by misplaced loyalty to the Financial Services Act 1986. We will cut through the present jumble of responsibilities and plethora of bodies to achieve a streamlined system of regulations.
In the financial services industry, long-term business growth can only be achieved when the customer has confidence in the sound governance of the market. What we have seen up to now is not that. We want to see good business and good regulation go hand in hand. We argue that the Government have failed on both counts, and that is why even the financial services industry needs a Labour Government.
11.27 pm
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) says that the thrust of the proposals in the regulations is to help large investors and not small. I do not think that she can have read the proposals, because the regulations are full of protection for the small investor. As I itemised before and after the 7 o'clock bar on our proceedings, a number of the regulations have been designed with exactly that point in mind.
The hon. Lady should remember that, if the small shareholder wishes to keep his or her shareholding under the new TAURUS system through the company account rather than through a commercial controller, there will be no direct cost charged to him or her as a separate shareholder; it will be handled in the normal way, as at the moment, as a cost on the company generally. So I do not understand her point that it will be costly and burdensome to small shareholders, whose position is protected by the existence of the company account. They will go to the commercial account system only if it offers them a service that they wish to purchase at a sensible price.
The hon. Lady then said that she does not think that the regulatory regime here is tough enough. She does not feel that so strongly, I think, that she wants to vote against the regulations tonight, and I think that she conceded towards the end that the combination of this regulatory framework and a suitable rule book will do the job. Of course it will, because the regulations make it clear that the Secretary of State must satisfy himself before allowing the TAURUS operator to go ahead, and there will be a full, independent inspection of the system before the Secretary of State grants the authority to the operator to go ahead under these clear regulations.
Finally, the hon. Lady said that she did not think that the compensation scheme was adequate or properly structured. The sum is as large as I ever imagined it would be during our negotiations to get satisfactory compensation for individuals. The hon. Lady seems to forget that the compensation scheme is intended for private investors.

921
The level of cover—£250,000 for a single error or problem in a private investor's account—is more than adequate to the task. I should have thought that that sum would cover most investments made by most people—even members of the Labour party. The intention is to cover the private investor. Professionals look after themselves in other ways —through business checks and controls and by recourse to the law if things go wrong; £250,000 is a lot of money.
The hon. Lady made a number of procrastinatory remarks about delays. I do not recognise the story that she told. I established a full consultation exercise on TAURUS when I had from the stock exchange an idea of what it wanted. We wanted to consult widely—that included consulting the hon. Lady and the Labour party —because that is the fair way in which to do these things. I then brought the regulations to the House with expedition. There was no lack of initiative on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is now over to the stock exchange to develop the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Uncertified Securities Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Unemployment (Pontefract and Castleford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
11.31 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful for the opportunity to describe the problems of unemployment in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies.
In December 1991, the official unemployment figures for the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area were 10 per cent. of the total work force and 13 per cent. of the male work force. Recent announcements of job losses in the mining industry in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies—at the Prince of Wales, Sharlston and Kellingley collieries and the Whitemoor colliery at Selby—will mean that 11.7 per cent. of the total work force and 15.7 per cent. of the male work force will be unemployed, the increases being 17 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively. In December 1991, 8.7 per cent. of the total work force and 11.9 per cent. of the male work force in west Yorkshire were unemployed. Thus the unemployment rate in the area to which I am referring far exceeds both the rate for west Yorkshire and the national rate.
Since 1981, 17 collieries have closed, with the loss of 14,640 jobs. If one adds to that the 920 job losses announced last week in my area, the total number of jobs lost is 15,560–90 per cent. of Wakefield metropolitan district council's mining work force in 1981. Again, if one adds the jobs lost in spin-off industry, the job losses in the area total 20,000. Moreover, only yesterday, National Power announced that there would be hundreds of job losses at the Eggborough and Drax power stations.
The average age of the miners who have lost their jobs at the collieries to which I referred is 33. Some 95 per cent. of the Sharlston and Prince of Wales miners live in the Wakefield metropolitan district council area, as do 90 per cent. of the Kellingley miners and 60 per cent. of the Whitemoor miners. A total of 1,035 of the latest redundancies will affect people living in the area.
We must also take into account the closure of the Allerton Bywater colliery in March, with some 600 people —many of them also residing in the area—losing their jobs. The House and the Minister will appreciate the great problems that we are experiencing in my area and in other mining communities.
The collieries to which I refer are not unsuccessful collieries. For instance, as I understand it, those collieries can produce coal at about £38 per tonne, which compares well with the recently announced £68 per tonne reference price band for the European Community. The House can well appreciate how those miners will be feeling, given their efforts since 1985. Only a few weeks ago, some of them were breaking national output records, but this is the reward that they are now getting.
Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene at this point. My hon. Friend will be aware that in July last year, when the chairman of British Coal presented his report, he said that British Coal had made 79 per cent. profit on the operational account and had broken records because of the dedication and the will of the men who worked in the industry. What a poor reward it is for people who have given devoted service to

923
be told only a few months later that they are to be made redundant. The travel-to-work area to which my hon. Friend referred covers a part of my constituency. I put it to the Minister that there is a great deal of concern, and the way in which British Coal has treated its work force in this recent announcement of redundancies is shameful.
Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I fully appreciate the points that he has made. His constituency is affected by the recent announcements.
Over the past year, production levels have been as follows: Sharlston, 1 million tonnes; Kellingley, 2.1 million tonnes; Prince of Wales, 1.35 million tonnes; and Whitemoor, 1.36 million tonnes. Two of those pits have made good profits over the past year. Two have not done so well, but both are in development phases, preparing for production that will make profits.
The colliery closures have had spin-off effects in the mining engineering industry, with which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is familiar. He has been doing a lot of work recently to assist that industry, which is mainly based in his constituency.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reference to the mining engineering industry and I commend him on his efforts over many years on behalf of the coal industry in general. He is aware, I know, that last year the Wultex factory in Wakefield closed down, with the loss of 60 jobs. In the last week or two, we have lost 100 jobs at Gullick Dobson in Wakefield. Is it not absolute nonsense that in this situation, with the loss not only of 15,000 mining jobs but of an additional 5,000 jobs in industries affected by the coal industry, we do not get one scrap of assistance from the British Government to regenerate the economy in Wakefield? The only help we get from the European Community is blocked by the British Government, who refuse to allow us that assistance. Is that not absolute nonsense?
Mr. Lofthouse: My hon. Friend is right. At the beginning of the 1980s, the mining engineering industry was a very healthy industry in the area. Local firms were performing well and were innovators and they provided good-quality training. In 1981, 1,651 people were employed in the local industry. A large proportion of the work force were very highly skilled engineers.
As the mining industry has been run down, there has been parallel picture in the mining engineering industry. Between 1981 and 1987, the local mining engineering industry was cut back slightly, to 1,532 employees. With the acceleration in the colliery closure programme from 1985 onwards, the markets of the mining engineering industry have been massively reduced. Between 1987 and 1989, there were more than 400 job losses, reducing the local work force to 1,121 in 1989. Since 1989, the local work force has been halved, leaving only 577 employees in the industry in January 1992. Another 95 job losses in the next weeks have been announced. If they go ahead, the industry will have declined by 1,169 men, or 70.8 per cent. of the work force, since 1981. In the four years since the 1987 census of employment, the industry will have lost 1,050 men, or 68.5 per cent. of its work force.
I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for National Power and PowerGen, but they seem to have got around the table in a cosy arrangement with British Coal to fix the coal contracts after 1993. They are going through the exercise of negotiation but, according to the
924
International Coal Report of 13 January, they have already agreed the tonnage that they will take from British Coal after 1993. It will be about 40 million tonnes, including opencast. That means that there will be 25 million tonnes of deep-mined coal.
There are also rumours that, because the commercial director of British Coal did not agree with that cosy little arrangement, he has got the sack. There is evidence of that. If the information about the tonnages is right, it means that the mining industry will be run down to about the size suggested in the Rothschild report. That could mean the loss of 30,000 to 40,000 more jobs in the industry between 1993 and 1995. It would mean that there would be no further competition in the electricity industry, as was foreseen at the time of the privatisation legislation. If British Coal is run down to the level needed to meet the demands of National Power and PowerGen, new players in the field could not purchase coal in this country. If gas is used for new or replacement capacity, the evidence is that it will be much dearer than coal.
If that is the case, newcomers would be in breach of the licences given on the privatisation of electricity. They would even be in difficulty in trying to import coal, because National Power and PowerGen have now got control of the ports at Immingham and are interested in Liverpool, so they are tying up that avenue, too. Therefore, there will be no competition in the supply of electricity. What is happening with British Coal, PowerGen and National Power is creating unemployment in mining communities such as mine.
My main point, which I have made many times in the House over the years, is that the Government have organised the rundown of the mining industry. For many years, they have had a duty to create replacement jobs in those communities but they have never done that in the areas to which I am referring.
The allocation of RECHAR to West Yorkshire totals £10.5 million, consisting of £8,568,000 from the European regional development fund and £1,792,000 from the European social fund. The Minister and his colleagues are witholding the RECHAR programme because of the Government's position on additionality. If that was not the case, projects ready for implementation within the Wakefield metropolitan district council area, which includes Pontefract and Castleford, would provide the following jobs: 600 in environmental improvements, 800 in the social and economic infrastructure, 550 in factory units and premises, 300 in tourism and 500 in small firms measures. Therefore, a total of 2,750 jobs could be got off the ground immediately in Wakefield alone if the Government would release the RECHAR programme.
I recognise that if RECHAR is released, Wakefield metropolitan district council's capital programme is so small that it would be unable to maximise the ERDF claim. But I strongly press the Minister to release RECHAR in view of the amount of the European social fund which is revenue-additional. At present, Wakefield could claim £622,000 for the 1990 and 1991 tranches, having incurred that expenditure to date. It could claim a further £1 million for 1992–93. All that money could be spent in the next two years on training redundant mineworkers and others in the power industry.
In those circumstances, and given that the Pontefract and Castleford area within the WMDC has received no Government assistance since the rapid rundown of the coal industry, I implore the Minister to release the

925
RECHAR money to save mining communities such as my constituency from devastation and to provide employment for young redundant mine workers, who have achieved record-breaking production since 1985, only to be rewarded with the loss of their jobs. I hope that the Minister will take the advice in several of the Energy Select Committee's reports, where it has recognised the problems of the mining communities and advised the Government to support them. So far, that advice has been ignored.
Only the other day, a press statement was attributed to Commissioner Millan, saying that he was considering further moneys for areas like mine after the announcement of those job losses. There has been a further announcement that this country could lose up to £900 million if the Government do not change their attitude. Surely no Minister would want those young miners, who are thrown on the scrap heap as a result of Government, British Coal and PowerGen policy, to face a future with no employment at all, when money is available to provide jobs for many of them.
Any Government, whatever their political label, who do not decide to relieve that problem when they have the power to do so are failing in their duty. They have an obligation to mining communities. Miners have worked hard to produce the cheapest coal in Europe but they are now being thrown out of work. Selby miners in particular have been transferred from pit to pit and they have taken out high mortgages to buy lovely houses, to which they are entitled. They are now worried stiff.
I hope that the Minister will have some news for us tonight, and say that the Government may change their minds over the RECHAR programme, as the Secretary of State for the Environment suggests.
11.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on having obtained this Adjournment debate. The House and I fully understand the concern which he has described in his constituency, and which his hon. Friends, have described in neighbouring constituencies, at the recent developments that have taken place. I do not want to involve myself—it is not my place to do so—in the energy policy elements that he has understandably raised. I shall confine my remarks to his points about employment and what can be and is being done to alleviate the problems that he outlined.
May I put in context the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave at the outset of his speech? He mentioned the Pontefract and Castleford travel-to-work area. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in June 1983, nearly 7,000 people were out of work in that area and that by June 1987, the figure was 8,347. The last available figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted was 5,632. Although that figure is still unacceptably high, as such unemployment figures would be in any part of the country, it shows that progress has been made, even against the background that the hon. Gentleman described. That figure suggests that progress has been made.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the fact that further recent job losses have been announced at the Kellingly, Prince of Wales and other Yorkshire collieries.
926
I appreciate that those losses are severe and why the hon. Gentleman has argued against those job cuts. However, I must remind the House that such matters are for British Coal to judge as an employer. It must make its best judgment about the commercial pressures and the jobs that it is to sustain. It must make a decision about the manpower requirements needed to produce the required tonnage to sell in competition with other fuels. I do not believe that the Government should seek to intervene directly in that process.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Surely the Government have already intervened by actively supporting the Immingham port legislation, which will enable coal to be imported up the Humber. That direct Government intervention has undermined the Yorkshire coalfield in Pontefract, Castleford and my constituency.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that it is for the Government of the day to determine the broad framework of energy policy. Coal, in conjunction with other fuels, fits into that framework. It is for those responsible for providing energy to the country to make the decisions about which fuels are the most appropriate. British Coal operates within that framework and it must draw its own conclusions about what level of employment is sustainable in different mining communities.
This debate is about the outcome of that series of policy decisions. I do not shrink from that and, in that sense, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is correct to say that the Government have some direct input. I appreciate the personal and family problems that are caused when individuals lose their jobs. However, with the continuing provision of the coal restructuring grant and other policies, redundant employees are still offered generous severance terms according to any measure.
British Coal announced recently that the age-related supplementary lump sum payments will terminate on 31 March 1992, after being in operation for more than two years. When British Coal announced that scheme in 1990, it said that its continued availability would be subject to review at an appropriate date. Whether any future scheme is introduced to replace those payments is a matter for British Coal and outside my responsibility. However, I understand that payments made under the scheme will be available to miners at the pits in the area mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford where job losses have recently been announced, provided that miners apply before 31 March. I hope that those payments will ensure that the level of provision remains equal to that made in the past two years at least.
Mr. Lofthouse: I appreciate that this is not a matter for the Minister's Department, but he has not got the real picture. Some of the young men aged between 30 and 38 will end up with a payment of £18,000—equivalent to about a year and a half's salary. However, those men have no hope of any other job and they have a large mortgage around their necks. They believe that they have no future. That is their reward for achieving record production levels since 1985.
Mr. Forth: I can understand that reaction as an immediate response to what has happened, but that is not the full story. I do not know whether time will permit me

927
to mention all the schemes that are available through my Department, the Employment Service and the training and enterprise councils.
Many agencies can help people who have had the misfortune to lose their jobs to identify their strengths and weaknesses, or their skill requirements. They can help to identify the way in which those people can either find other work or set themselves up in self-employment. Many other miners who have lost their jobs have subsequently become self-employed. They will use the severance payments to seek other employment or self-employment. These possibilities exist. It is the responsibility of the dedicated people in the Employment Service—those working in the TECs—to seek to help people who have lost their jobs in mining to find alternative employment.
I hope that Opposition Members will help by looking at the positive opportunities that exist for re-employment or self-employment for those of all ages who have received redundancy payments and who have skills, energy and vigour still to offer. That is a better approach than claiming that people who have lost their jobs in mining are in some way—I think the phrase was used this evening —on the scrap heap or forgotten. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the concern expressed by Opposition Members this evening, putting the matter in such a negative light does not help these people. Government Departments try in these difficult circumstances to come up with policies that help.
Grants and money are important, but equally important is identifying more positive employment alternatives.
It is worth noting that during British Coal's major restructuring there has not been a single compulsory redundancy. That goes for job losses in the pits in the Selby coalfield—
Mr. O'Brien: The men at the Selby coalfield were told that, if they did not let the management know by the Sunday night whether they would take redundancy, they would receive no redundancy payments. If that is not compulsory, what is?
Mr. Forth: I am not in a position to comment on that, but the hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter to establish whether reasonable alternatives have been offered. But within the strict definition of compulsory redundancy, what I said remains true.
Those who choose redundancy will continue to be provided with specialist counselling and positive assistance in obtaining jobs by British Coal Enterprise, the body established expressly to help redundant miners and their communities. As hon. Members know, the Department of Energy has made over £60 million available to British Coal Enterprise, which has enabled it to create more than 75,000 opportunities for work nationwide. Over 80 per cent. of those registering at job shops set up by British Coal Enterprise at collieries which have closed have found employment. That reinforces my positive message of a moment ago.
As Opposition Members probably know, British Coal Enterprise has such a job shop at Allerton Bywater colliery; and I understand that it will now be setting up job shops at Sharlston, Kellingley and Prince of Wales
928
collieries. These are all positive steps being taken by British Coal Enterprise to meet the challenge outlined by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
Opposition Members may want me to comment briefly on RECHAR. The allegation, repeated tonight, that the British Government are withholding the money is a travesty of the truth. It is Commissioner Millan who is withholding the money—
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forth: I will not. I have only two minutes left.
Mr. Enright: The Minister is afraid to give way.
Mr. Forth: I am trying to comment on a point that hon. Members have asked me about.
It is the Commissioner who has said that he is withholding the money, or who has threatened to withhold it because he claims that there is some sort of difficulty over the British Government's use of the money. That is not true. The Government continue to pursue policies in this matter which they have pursued for some time. The British Government want these programmes to be used in a positive way to help the areas for which they are designed. It does not help the communities involved when a former Labour Secretary of State comes up with such arguments—
Mr. Enright: Give way!
Mr. Forth: It is unhelpful of the Commissioner to come up with arguments that prevent the release of funds to help the very communities that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford has mentioned. I hope that we can all move forward, as the Government hope to do, together with the commissioner, to identify whatever difficulties may exist and to work out ways of using the money in the ways for which it was intended—
Mr. Lofthouse: If the Government have their way and the money is paid to central Government, will the Minister guarantee that the money will come to Pontefract and Castleford and areas like it?
Mr. Forth: Provided that good will prevails on all sides and the matter is dealt with sensibly and practically, there is no doubt that the funds designed to help these areas will be directed towards them. No one wishes otherwise. The Government and the Commissioner must continue to try to identify any difficulties. Certainly, the Commissioner has admitted from time to time that he has similar difficulties with the definition of additionality even in other member states. The problem has arisen and continues to arise from time to time in various member states of the Community.
I hope that Opposition Members understand the Government's wish to adopt a positive attitude to the problems rightly brought to our attention by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford this evening. I hope that he will accept my comments in that positive and helpful light.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  County Courts
  County Courts
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Fire Regulations
  Fire Regulations
  Visitors' Permits
  Visitors' Permits
  Genetic Fingerprinting
  Genetic Fingerprinting
  Control and Restraint
  Control and Restraint
  George Blake
  George Blake
  Pornographic Disks
  Pornographic Disks
  Television (Violence)
  Television (Violence)
  Leicestershire Police
  Leicestershire Police
  Immigration and Nationality Registry
  Immigration and Nationality Registry
  Mr. Younus Patel
  Mr. Younus Patel
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Police Batons
  Police Batons
  Immigration
  Immigration
ENVIRONMENT
  Polluters (Prosecutions)
  Polluters (Prosecutions)
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Appeals Tribunals
  Appeals Tribunals
  Wheal Jane Mine
  Wheal Jane Mine
  Parliamentary Works Office Staff
  Parliamentary Works Office Staff
  Noise Insulation
  Noise Insulation
  Ley Holdings Ltd.
  Ley Holdings Ltd.
  West Yorkshire Fire Authority
  West Yorkshire Fire Authority
  Devonport Secondary School
  Devonport Secondary School
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Funding
  Funding
  Planning
  Planning
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Landfill Sites
  Landfill Sites
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Uniform Business Rate
  Uniform Business Rate
  PA Consulting
  PA Consulting
  Sprinkler Systems
  Sprinkler Systems
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Global Growth Strategy
  Global Growth Strategy
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Board of Inland Revenue
  Board of Inland Revenue
  Bingham Inquiry
  Bingham Inquiry
  Inspectors of Taxes
  Inspectors of Taxes
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Tax and National Insurance
  Tax and National Insurance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  India
  India
  Israel
  Israel
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Gulf States
  Gulf States
  Felesmina Dos Santos Consecao
  Felesmina Dos Santos Consecao
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Research Institutes
  Research Institutes
  Trade Fairs (Support)
  Trade Fairs (Support)
  Cotton
  Cotton
  Arms Exports Exhibition
  Arms Exports Exhibition
  Instruments of Torture
  Instruments of Torture
TRANSPORT
  Bus Demonstration Projects
  Bus Demonstration Projects
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
  London Travel Statistics
  London Travel Statistics
  M3
  M3
  A19
  A19
  Stranraer to Larne Ferries
  Stranraer to Larne Ferries
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
  Leicester Eastern Bypass
  Leicester Eastern Bypass
  Tyre Treads
  Tyre Treads
  Dock Labour Scheme
  Dock Labour Scheme
  A1 (Bypasses)
  A1 (Bypasses)
  Glasgow to London Rail Service
  Glasgow to London Rail Service
  Stockport Bypass
  Stockport Bypass
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
PRIME MINISTER
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Bingham Inquiry
  Bingham Inquiry
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Departmental Information Systems
  Departmental Information Systems
ENERGY
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Publicity
  Publicity
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  British Coal (Chairman)
  British Coal (Chairman)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Selection)
  Schools (Selection)
  Education Administration (Lancashire)
  Education Administration (Lancashire)
  Teacher Supply
  Teacher Supply
  Grant-maintained Schools
  Grant-maintained Schools
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  School Repairs
  School Repairs
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  School Building
  School Building
  Northumberland Schools
  Northumberland Schools
  Non-vocational Education
  Non-vocational Education
  GCSE Passes
  GCSE Passes
  Further Education Funding Councils
  Further Education Funding Councils
  Adult Education (Liverpool)
  Adult Education (Liverpool)
  Sixth-Form Education
  Sixth-Form Education
  Outside Toilets
  Outside Toilets
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Coopers and Lybrand
  Disability Working Allowance
  Disability Working Allowance
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  MINIS
  MINIS
  Pensioners' Incomes
  Pensioners' Incomes
  Benefits Agency
  Benefits Agency
  Special Medical Boards
  Special Medical Boards
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Arachnoiditis
  Arachnoiditis
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Earnings Disregard
  Earnings Disregard
  Disability Living Allowance Forms
  Disability Living Allowance Forms
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Care Homes
  Care Homes
  Benefit Deductions
  Benefit Deductions
  Income-related Benefits
  Income-related Benefits
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
  Exports
  Exports
  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Belfast International Airport
  Belfast International Airport
  Rathlin Island (Electricity)
  Rathlin Island (Electricity)
  House Building
  House Building
  Social Security Allowances
  Social Security Allowances
  Repair and Improvement Grants
  Repair and Improvement Grants
  House Improvements
  House Improvements
  Bus Exhaust Emissions
  Bus Exhaust Emissions
DEFENCE
  Military Training
  Military Training
  Privatisations
  Privatisations
  REME Building, Woolwich Common
  REME Building, Woolwich Common
  Byelaws (Breaches)
  Byelaws (Breaches)
  Diversification
  Diversification
  Mr. Bill Weir
  Mr. Bill Weir
  Submarine Berthing Tugs
  Submarine Berthing Tugs
  International Arms Sales Register
  International Arms Sales Register
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Imported Meat Products
  Imported Meat Products
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Canada Geese
  Canada Geese
  Irradiation
  Irradiation
  Ghana
  Ghana
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Sheep Dip Products
  Sheep Dip Products
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  Mixed Credits
  Mixed Credits
WALES
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  A48
  A48
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  A465
  A465
  Mine Workings (Ferruginous Discharges)
  Mine Workings (Ferruginous Discharges)
  Tertiary Colleges
  Tertiary Colleges
  Company Directors (Disqualification)
  Company Directors (Disqualification)
  Redundancies, Bangor
  Redundancies, Bangor
  Denis Ferranti Meters
  Denis Ferranti Meters
  Land Drainage
  Land Drainage
  Takeovers
  Takeovers
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Electronics
  Electronics
  Middle East (Visit)
  Middle East (Visit)
  Training Resources
  Training Resources
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Training
  Employment Training
  Cotton Spinning
  Cotton Spinning
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Apex Trust Leicester
  Apex Trust Leicester
HEALTH
  Expenditure, North West Thames Region
  Expenditure, North West Thames Region
  Computers
  Computers
  Winter Death Rates
  Winter Death Rates
  Cryptosporidium
  Cryptosporidium
  Bathing Water
  Bathing Water
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Children (Dental Care)
  Children (Dental Care)
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Appointments
  Appointments
  Mental Handicap
  Mental Handicap
  Dental Contracts
  Dental Contracts
  NHS Regulations
  NHS Regulations
  Rugby NHS Trust
  Rugby NHS Trust
  Employment Provisions
  Employment Provisions
  Pain Management
  Pain Management
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Cancer Treatments
  Cancer Treatments
  Pets (Cancer Treatment)
  Pets (Cancer Treatment)
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Bradford Action on Health
  Bradford Action on Health
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Westwood Hospital
  Westwood Hospital
  Means Testing
  Means Testing
  Policy Forum Report
  Policy Forum Report
  Accident and Emergency Services
  Accident and Emergency Services
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Drug Smuggling
  Drug Smuggling
SCOTLAND
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Grant-aided Colleges
  Grant-aided Colleges
  Scottish Estates
  Scottish Estates
  Fishing and Shooting Estates
  Fishing and Shooting Estates
  "Sport at Home and Abroad"
  "Sport at Home and Abroad"
  Libya (Lockerbie)
  Libya (Lockerbie)

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the Legal Services Ombudsman and staff at their offices in Manchester on Friday, 31st January. As these arrangements were made before it was known that this House will be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 31st January.

Boat People: Repatriation
2.37 p.m.
Lord Ennalsasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong have been repatriated (a) voluntarily and (b) by compulsion.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, since the voluntary repatriation programme was introduced in March 1989, 15,000 Vietnamese migrants have returned voluntarily to Vietnam under UNHCR auspices, and 138 have returned under repatriation arrangements agreed with the Vietnamese.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he comment on the unprecedented numbers of voluntary returnees? Does he agree with me that in view of the very large numbers who are now returning voluntarily, it would be unwise for the Government to proceed with mandatory forcible repatriations, not only because it would do damage to Britain's reputation, but because it would overload the resettlement arrangements being made by the Vietnamese Government with very little international aid?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can do no better than quote the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who went to Vietnam in January 1990. He stated that:
"The right place for persons not classified as refugees was their country of origin".
It is quite right therefore that we welcome the increase in volunteers. That has come about by the agreement reached by the Vietnamese and British Governments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the position would be eased if relations between the United States Government and the Vietnamese Government were improved? Can he say whether there is any prospect of that? Can he also say what is our aid programme in Vietnam at the present time, and whether the Vietnamese
1162
Government are receiving any help from the International Monetary Fund or from the World Bank?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be a good thing if America reconsidered her attitude toward Vietnam; but that is a question for the Americans. With regard to our aid, it is part of an EC agreement on helping with the reintegration of the boat people coming back from Hong Kong and other parts in South-East Asia. There is a fund at the moment—the EC International Fund—which totals 45 million dollars. Britain's contribution is 20 per cent. of 40 million dollars, which is our apportionment, plus a further 5 million dollars. Therefore we are contributing about 30 per cent. of the programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I have noted from reports in the press that relations have improved between the United States and Vietnam. Can the noble Earl confirm whether there is any truth in that?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. There has been an improvement, and we wish that improvement to continue and to develop further.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance whether those who have been repatriated, either voluntarily or compulsorily, have been persecuted on their return to Vietnam?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he went to Vietnam, we found no evidence of persecution during our visit; none was found by the British Embassy and none by UNHCR.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to explain to the House exactly how many people we are talking about? Is it a fact that there was at one time a school of thought in this country which said that the Hong Kong people ought to take them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, more than 15,000 Vietnamese migrants have returned from Hong Kong; and a further 3,000 from other first asylum countries in the region. There are 58,890 Vietnamese people still in Hong Kong.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, on the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, if the dual repatriation arrangement is working, would it not be sensible to allow that to continue in that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with my noble friend. It is due to the orderly repatriation programme that has been agreed with the Vietnamese that the number of volunteers has increased. In the middle of last year, we were down to very few volunteers; now, as a result of what has been agreed, there has been an increase in the number. There have been two flights in the recent past and there will be more in the future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has there been any recent change in the trends of repatriation by the American

1163
administration of Mexican and Caribbean boat people, or frontier people, coming into the United States?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a most interesting question, but it is rather wide of that on the Order Paper.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, did not my noble friend Lord Ennals ask a perfectly reasonable question? He asked whether the Government considered that the voluntary process was sufficient in itself, and whether they should therefore suspend the compulsory programme for the time being. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable question which, as far as I can discover, has not been answered.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered that question when replying to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. It is a combination of both the orderly repatriation arrangements and the volunteers that has made the process work so satisfactorily.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, how many of the voluntary repatriates came from what used to be called North Vietnam, and how many from South Vietnam? An indicator might well be there regarding the economic viability and the economic strain on those refugees.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the vast majority have come from central and northern Vietnam. I do not have the precise figures, but I could obtain them for my noble friend.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I seek elucidation. Are the refugees racially Han-Chinese? Do they first put in to a Chinese port before they get to Hong Kong? If they do so, should not China be the place for them to be sent back to rather than Vietnam? I say that for the simple reason that that is where they came from and that is where they should go back as a port of first call. I seek this as elucidation from a pile of ignorance.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on a point of clarification, they are not refugees until they have gone through the screening process. They are migrants. Some are seeking a better life, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, found out; some are true refugees. Some come direct from Vietnam, some come via China and some come from the Portuguese territory of Macau. At the present time we believe that the best way to return them to their home—that is, the non-refugees—is to send them straight back to Vietnam.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister how grateful I am that his conclusions when he reached Vietnam tallied with my own, even though I am not at all convinced that the voluntary programme is speeding up because of their mandatory programme. I have a further specific question. How many boat people have volunteered to return but are still awaiting permission to return?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have about 4,000 volunteers waiting to come back. They can
1164
volunteer but if they wish to change their mind at any time they are able to do so. That is exactly what happened in the middle of last year when we ran out of volunteers. It is quite interesting to note that the volunteers started to grow in number and to come forward as soon as we put into position an orderly repatriation programme.

Inheritance Tax: Residences
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the cost to public funds of a decision to free from liability to inheritance tax an individual's principal home.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the information is not available in precisely the form requested by my noble friend. To exempt all residential property from inheritance tax on death is estimated to cost around £500 million in a full year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may indicate qualified gratitude to my noble friend for giving part of the information for which I asked. Is it not a fact—and has my noble friend allowed for it —that if when someone succeeds to a family home he is freed from the need to pay inheritance tax that will reduce the demand on public funds where questions of preserving a historic home arise, an area where considerable expenditure is incurred already? Secondly, is it not in accordance with government policy that people should be given full opportunity to continue to live in and own their own homes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the Government wish to encourage people to continue to live in their own homes. There is exemption for transfers between spouses on death which saves either widows or widowers from needing to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax. So far as concerns historic houses or houses of architectural interest, exemptions from inheritance tax are available in those cases.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, while I sympathise with the need for some reform to secure a fairer spread of the burden of inheritance tax, does the Minister not agree that this specific proposal would be regressive in that, first, it would give the biggest benefits to those with the biggest houses and, secondly, it would encourage avoidance—not evasion—by encouraging people of advanced years to put their assets into unnecessarily large houses, thereby distorting both the housing market and the investment market?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord's second point is indeed true. It would probably encourage people to concentrate their wealth in more expensive homes than they really needed. On the noble Lord's first point of providing a fairer spread of inheritance tax, of the 640,000 people who die each

1165
year in the United Kingdom only about 4 per cent. of estates pay inheritance tax. It would be better for that figure to go down rather than up.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how his noble friend's suggestion would help people to live in their own homes when they are, by definition, dead?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer for my noble friend. The point I took from his question was that the family should continue to live in the home.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House of the current threshold for paying this tax? How has it moved since 1979? In addition, I wonder whether it is possible for him to remind us about the movement in house prices over the same period.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. Since 1979 the threshold for inheritance tax, which is now £140,000, has risen by 460 per cent. The price of property has risen by 293 per cent. So it has had a favourable effect on the matter.
Lord Morris: My Lords, what is the cost of assessment and collection of inheritance tax on an individual's principal home?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood my noble friend's question correctly. The figure I gave in my original Answer is that the yield from inheritance tax on residential property is around £500 million. The total yield from inheritance tax for the current financial year is around £1.3 billion.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I shall put my question in another way. Is that net yield or gross yield after deducting the cost of collection and assessment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that it would probably be gross yield.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend expand upon his statement that exemption is granted in the case of historic houses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, relief may be claimed for buildings of outstanding historical or architectural interest. Conditional exemption is available because of the heritage quality of the building, whether or not it happens to be the owner's main home. In return for the exemption, the owner must give undertakings to maintain the property, to preserve its character and to give the public access to it.

N.I. Housing Executive: Funding
2.50 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What cutbacks in funding to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are planned as a result of the costs of increased security and compensation for damage.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in the 1991–92 financial year the funding of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been reduced by £430,000 by a moratorium on the release of new contracts. The need for this has arisen because of new expenditure requirements in a number of areas, including education and health, and not solely or mainly because of security costs, although that has been one factor.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply on a very difficult matter. Of course, he will be aware that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said—and, indeed, the noble Lord just repeated it—that one of the major reasons for housing cutbacks is connected with the cost of damage. However, is he also aware that among the contracts that have been put on ice as a result of the moratorium are 22 contracts for the construction of new homes, 42 contracts for the modernisation of homes and a further group of contracts for the maintenance of homes? Although I understand the financial stringency, does the Minister agree that it would be a great pity if the terrorists were to achieve through the demoralisation which results from these cutbacks the very effects that they have not achieved through violence?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said at the conclusion of his remarks. However, I must repeat that the moratorium was necessary because of expenditure running towards the ceiling of the Northern Ireland block covering different areas of government expenditure in the Province. That included expenditure on security. Without wishing to sound in any way complacent, I must say that the pause on starting new contracts will have an impact on the executive's programmes in that there will be a delay of about two to three months. But that will be the extent of it. Immediately we are into the new financial year—indeed, just before the end of it because the expenditure will not fall due to be paid until we are into the new financial year—it will be possible to proceed with the contracts.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that much of the recent expense and violence could well have been avoided had the Government granted the extra troops which were requested by the Chief Constable and the GOC at the time that they were requested; that is, prior to the recent well-forecasted increase?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's direct concern in these matters. However, if he

1167
will forgive me for saying so, that is a rather different Question from the one that appears on the Order Paper.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the full reply that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. Nevertheless, in deciding whether or not the Housing Executive is to be deprived of any funds which it would otherwise receive and spend on housing, do the Government take fully into account the fact that there are 6,000 people who are homeless and about 22,000 people who are on the waiting list for housing, some of whom are in that position due to intimidation? Is the Minister aware that those people could testify that they find the decision to be grossly unfair? Further, is there not a danger that financial restrictions of such a nature may help to convince the IRA, and other terrorist organisations, that Britain has a maximum price limit beyond which it will not go in upholding law and order in Northern Ireland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's concern in the matter. However, I believe that it is worth pointing out that the per capita expenditure on housing is higher in Northern Ireland than it is in Great Britain. As a Northern Ireland Minister, I take some pride in that fact. The noble Lord also asked me a very important question about people who are homeless and those who are affected so far as concerns their homes.
I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there is a little-known scheme for the purchase of evacuated dwellings called SPED. The scheme is run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and was set up precisely for the reason that its name implies. It has a running cost of £3 million for this year. The money for the programme is paid back to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in full. Compensation for terrorist damage to housing is also paid by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and it is running at an additional £1 million over and above its budget for this year. Again, that is repaid in full.
But, inevitably, those amounts of money which are repaid to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in full make demands on the Northern Ireland block of expenditure. I believe that the noble Lord's final point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I have, therefore, already replied to it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I believe that the House will welcome the Minister's assurance—we certainly do on these Benches—that the contracts will be very rapidly resumed in the new financial year. That is extremely good news. However, can he say whether the £7.5 million deficit of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will be dealt with in the new financial year with the same promptitude?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have also read the remarks of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive regarding a deficit. However, I believe that all I ought to say this afternoon is that public expenditure—including, incidentally, rental income and capital
1168
receipts—for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has remained fairly constant over the past four years. On the figures that I have, that position should continue for the next financial year.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may return to one part of the Minister's reply. There is an impression in Northern Ireland that the Housing Executive was deprived of £16 million during the year 1991–92. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any basis for that impression?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the run of figures: in 1989–90 there was £476 million in total public expenditure terms, including rental income and capital receipts; £472 million for the following year; and £491 million for the current year. The latter is not a true figure because it included the repayment of a loan of £12 million. Therefore, the true figure for the current year is £479 million. We have earmarked £483 million for next year. It was on those grounds that I said to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that I believe the fairly steady state of expenditure on housing in Northern Ireland will continue next year.

International Agricultural Development: Funding
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current contribution to the budget of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are contributing £11.3 million to the third replenishment agreed in 1989.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. However, does he agree that the International Fund for Agricultural Development is the most cost effective of all United Nations organisations, especially as regards helping small farmers, many of whom are women, to produce more food? Further, can the noble Earl tell the House why the British Government have apparently refused this year to contribute to IFAD's special famine relief fund for Africa, whereas other countries are contributing to it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that IFAD has carried out good work. However, so far as concerns the special programme for Africa, he will recall that in 1986, when we made our first contribution, we clearly stated then that it was a one-off exercise. The noble Lord was remarkably unspecific with regard to the pledges that other countries have made. Therefore, it may help if I tell the House that only Kuwait, Sweden and Nigeria have made firm pledges; France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have made conditional pledges upon a wide measure of support; and the United States has not made a pledge on the second phase.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the fact that the Government said that it was a one-off exercise in 1986 is surely not a reason for not contributing to the famine relief programme set up by IFAD at this time. Given the appalling suffering in the Horn of Africa and other African countries due to the failure of crops and bad harvests and so on, is there not an unanswerable case for at least making some contribution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree that we should support IFAD's work. We believe that the special programme tends to divert resources and funds away from its general work. We believe the fourth replenishment, negotiations for which are due to start in Qatar in April, is the area that needs to be sorted out to put IFAD's financing on a proper basis so that it can do its work in the future.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is any direction given to those countries as to the best way to increase production? I am thinking about plant breeding, because in this country the plant breeder is the main source of our increased production. It should be emphasised to those countries that plant breeding is most important.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wonder whether we have our priorities right. Does the Minister agree that we spend £2.44 billion a year subsidising agriculture within the European Community? Much of that money is fraudulently converted by the Mafia. While we are prepared to make such huge grants to develop countries, why are we not prepared to make peanuts available to countries which need developing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have a substantial bilateral and multilateral aid programme for a wide range of developing countries. When I considered possible supplementary questions, I failed to take into account that the noble Lord would bring up the European Community. I apologise to him for my oversight.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if, as he says, a number of countries are prepared to contribute conditionally to the special fund—I believe that France has pledged £22 million to the special fund—there is surely an opportunity for the British Government to make their own pledge so that that conditionality is met and a much larger sum is provided for the food producers of Africa?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, France's pledge is conditional. Germany, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland all contributed to the first phase but have said that they do not intend to contribute to the second phase. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it is much more important to get the fourth replenishment right and to put IFAD's funds on a proper basis for the future.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Ullswater will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on industrial relations reform that is to he made in another place.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibition) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 13) Order and the Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 will be taken.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to the making of arrangements under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 for the provision of residential accommodation in premises managed by persons other than local authorities. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a first time.—(Baroness Brigstocke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 5th February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)moved, That the Motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for 5th February shall be limited to 5 hours. (Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [Persons Disregarded for Purposes of Discount]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 143A:
Page 82, line 26, after ("trainee") insert ("engaged in activities in relation to their course of study for no less than 15 hours per week".).

1171
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 143B. The amendments, together with the following amendment which I shall move separately, again raise the issue of students.
Amendment No. 143A seeks to extend the definition of what would constitute a student, a student nurse, an apprentice or a YTS trainee. Within the university world there is no definition of what constitutes a full-time course although the DES tends to use 21 hours. I have checked the draft regulations and they contain no precise definition. The amendment tries to bring the assumption of the DES as to what is a full-time student closer to that of the social security definition of someone in full-time work.
If one looks at social security regulations one sees that at the moment social security assumes that someone is in full-time work if he or she works for 24 hours a week. From next April, that will reduce to 16 hours a week. Therefore, that person will not be eligible for income support. That means that a student will be regarded as a full-time student if he studies for 21 hours but will be ineligible for income support if he studies for more than 16 hours. It is to try to synchronise those two points that the amendment is moved. Clearly, if one is deemed to be a full-time student for income support purposes and loses one's rights to benefits covering housing and community charge, one must clearly be a student. However, as drafted, the Bill states that someone studying for between 16 and 24 hours would not be eligible for a status discount in lieu. In other words, such people are nothing. They are neither students nor unemployed and are therefore invisible.
I have talked to the principal of a leading FE college who makes clear the increasingly desperate financial position of students. He says that many of his youngsters are leaving college to start working life with accumulated debts of between £3,000 to £4,000. We cannot enlarge the participation rate of those doing retakes and topping up their qualifications unless we help.
I repeat that Amendment No. 143A relates to people who lose their entitlement to income support if they are not available for work because they are tied up for more than 16 hours a week. They will not be eligible for benefits as students because they are invisible unless they are tied up for more than 21 hours. Those in between appear to be eligible for neither level of support. That is an anomaly which I am sure the Committee will wish to correct.
Amendment No. 143B seeks a clearer definition of who will count as a student. The existing regulations leave the matter to the Secretary of State. We need clarification about the position of two groups of students; first, further education students who at the moment are ineligible for mandatory grants and student loans, and, secondly, postgraduate students who at the moment have access only to hardship funds which, at most universities, are exhausted.
We are seeking to have applied to institutions the definition of a prescribed educational institution that appears in the Further and Higher Education Bill;
1172
namely, that it is an institution aided by a local authority or one which is grant aided or is eligible to receive aid by way of grant.
Amendment No. 143A defines the eligibility of a discount for students in terms of hours of work and study, and Amendment No. 143B by where they study. If the Committee were minded to accept the first amendment that would bring the position of students into line with DSS regulations: if it were minded to accept the second amendment, it would bring the Bill into line with the Further and Higher Education Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My noble friend Lady Hamwee will be here shortly. She asked me to say that we support the amendment. It seeks to write into the Bill the definition of those who would be entitled to the discount. My great objection to the Bill, as to many other pieces of legislation which have passed through this place in recent years, is that far too much is left to prescription orders by the Secretary of State. We do not know what will be contained in those orders. The amendments are based, I understand, on previous examples from the DES. I hope that the Minister will look at the amendments sympathetically because there is no doubt that many students are facing great hardship. Unless something is done to give them exemption, I fear for the future. Many young people will start their adult life with enormous debts. What is proposed must be right. We should try to encourage students and give them these exemptions. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I shall be able to be helpful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, because the amendments would be severely restrictive. Amendment No. 143A seeks severely to restrict the scope of the discount provision. It provides that a person may be disregarded only if engaged on a course of study involving activities lasting for more than 15 hours a week. That could exclude a large number of people whom the provision is designed to include. Apprentices and YT trainees may not be undertaking a course of study as such. Their training is more usually by way of on-the-job instruction, with little or no formal education.
Amendment No. 143B would also exclude many of the people whom we intend to disregard under the provision. The amendment requires a student, student nurse, apprentice or YT trainee to be undertaking education or research at a further or higher education institution. Many apprentices, YT trainees and student nurses do not follow a formal course of education at such institutions. More often, they undertake training in an employment situation and therefore under this amendment would not qualify for the discount.
I can assure the Committee that students, student nurses, apprentices and YT trainees will be defined for discount purposes in an order to be made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. A copy of the draft order has been placed in the Library. The amendments would limit the extent of the discount provision so that fewer people in the student group of definitions would be eligible for discounts. I am sure that that is

1173
not what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord intended. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
As to postgraduates, the Government's proposed discount and exemption arrangements for students will apply to them in the same way that they apply to undergraduates or any other type of student. The definition of student status does not depend on the type of course undertaken or the qualifications sought. Although he is not in his place at the moment, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about the nature of postgraduate work as students do not always do their work in neat packages throughout the course of the year. However, if they are PhD students, they are included.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may put a question. Is she saying that, for example, if students are doing a retake of A-levels or if they are mature students doing part of a course, a part-time degree at university—in other words, extending the course over five years rather than three —they fall nonetheless to be disregarded for purposes of the discount?
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure of specific part-time courses to which the noble Baroness refers. A part-time course can be almost cursory or considerable. The draft regulations are there to be inspected at the moment and they include the definition of "trainees". But many trainees would be part of a recognised scheme and for those purposes would be counted for the disregard. If I am able to give the noble Baroness a fuller answer later, I shall do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for being so helpful. I take entirely the strictures that the amendment might restrict the position of those other than students in higher education or further education institutes. I am grateful to her for pointing that out.
Perhaps the Minister can follow up another point by correspondence. I still see a problem for the student who is taking a course at a university which is shorter than the one Mr. Portillo defined. In defining a student for these purposes—and I have checked the draft regulations and they confirm it—he stated that,
"students must be engaged in at least 21 hours of education a week at a qualifying institution for at least 24 weeks a year". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A; 20/11/91; col. 249.]
The problem concerns,
"21 hours of education a week".
Many courses do not have that limitation; others may be less than that. They may be not entirely full-time in the sense that they can be maintained with a job. Someone may work two days a week to pay their way.
We are concerned that people may lose their eligibility for income support but will not acquire eligibility for student invisibility if they fall between the 15 hours under this amendment and the 21 hours a week as specified by Mr. Portillo. That is the gap for students in further education and higher education institutions. Perhaps the Minister can help me on this point.
Baroness Blatch: First, we are talking about Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B which are restrictive for all categories. I believe that the noble Baroness has taken the point that they would be unduly restrictive. On the specific definition of a student in the category in which students appear, they would have to make a judgment about how much time they spent working and how much time they spent at a course of study. The regulations, I believe, cover that, but if not, I shall give a fuller answer to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply and in the light of it, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143B not moved.]
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 82, line 26, at end insert:
(" ()on the day he is a student who is not studying because the day falls within a customary holiday or vacation from his course of study; and").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment which seeks to ensure that students continue to be invisible over the vacation. In the Standing Committee of another place on 18th November 1991 Mr. Key suggested that during all vacations students would continue to be invisible. That was a helpful response, but we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm it, particularly in the light of the previous discussion. Also, what happens in the long July and August vacation when students have completed their courses before, we hope, going into full-time employment? Will they continue to be students or will they come down to income support?
Will the Minister also explain the situation of a student finishing an undergraduate course in late June or early July who expects to start a postgraduate course in early October? What would be that student's position over the summer? Would he continue to be invisible for discount? I hope for a response clarifying what I appreciate is a complicated group of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My reply can be brief. Students will be defined by means of an order. I believe we discussed that under the previous amendment. This will ensure that a student, once defined, will be disregarded for discount during any periods of vacation between academic terms and—to answer the noble Baroness's further point—before the last day of the course. In other words, the final day of the course becomes the period after which students will not be counted for disregard. Having given the assurance that students will continue to be regarded as students during their holidays, between academic terms, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Forgive me, but I do not believe that the Minister answered the other questions. What happens between the end of the

1175
undergraduate course and when students start work or a subsequent degree? Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to answer that.
Baroness Blatch: I covered that point when the noble Baroness was not listening to what I said. Students are not counted for disregard following the last day of the course so that after the last day of the course they are deemed not to qualify for the disregard.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry, but what happens if they are starting a postgraduate course?
Baroness Blatch: So far as I understand it, they will then be between two academic terms. However, I need to have that confirmed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I doubt that that is so, but it would be splendid.
Baroness Blatch: I shall have to check, but my understanding is that a student on a course of study between academic terms related to that course of study will be covered until the last day of the course. There is a gap between that day and taking up the PhD course and sometimes not all students take it up the following academic term. However, I shall check the point and let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seearmoved Amendment No. 145:
Page 85, line 16, at end insert ("or
( ) is severely physically disabled, is in receipt of Attendance Allowance at the higher or middle rate, and requires the services of a live-in carer.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish also, with the leave of the Committee, to speak to Amendment No. 145A. The amendments are linked. Amendment No. 145 deals with the position of the severely disabled in receipt of attendance allowance at the higher or middle rate requiring the services of a live-in carer. Only people who are seriously disabled would qualify for attendance allowance and a live-in carer. In our view there is a strong case for saying that such people should be exempt from paying the council tax.
Similarly, carers who are looking after severely disabled people—I refer to the person mentioned in Amendment No. 145A—have, in many cases, given up work to look after them in those people's homes. The people they care for would otherwise have to be cared for in an institution. Incidentally, if they were in an institution, they would not pay the council tax. Surely there is a strong case for saying that when someone has made an effort to keep a severely disabled person in the latter's home—I understand that is the Government's policy—and often has incurred great financial loss in so doing, that person as well as the severely disabled person being looked after should not be required to pay the community charge. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches entirely support Amendments Nos. 145 and 145A. The first of these amendments, as moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would ensure that a physically severely disabled person—I am not just talking about someone with Alzheimer's disease—who could only live in the community with the help of a carer would enjoy the same kind of status discount as someone suffering from Alzheimer's disease.
Amendment No. 145A would ensure that a live-in carer—such a person is carefully described and defined in the amendment—would also carry a discount. In other words, he would not bring his dowry with him. Both a severely physically disabled person and a person suffering from Alzheimer's disease would continue to be regarded as though they were a single person, thus enjoying double discount. The first discount would be incurred as a result of Amendment No. 145 and the second as a result of Amendment No. 145A. Thus a severely physically disabled person would be brought into line with a person suffering from Alzheimer's disease and both groups would escape a penalty when they need the support of a full-time carer. We on these Benches are happy to support both of these amendments.
Lady Kinloss: I wish to support particularly Amendment No. 145. The Government accept the need and the desirability of disabled people being able to live independently in the community. That independence is often only possible if there is a live-in carer. However, as they stand, the council tax proposals may achieve the opposite result and send disabled people back into residential care. I am sure the Government realise that care assistance for some people is not a luxury but a necessity. The difference between a full and active life and a life of dependency hangs on the availability of care assistance. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to follow up what the noble Baroness has just said. Unfortunately the community charge might constitute a breaking point for severely disabled people, if it is imposed. Those people may have to go back into residential care. That could be disastrous in terms of those people's happiness. It is most certainly not the Government's policy that they should go back into residential care. I hope that the Government will consider the relative cost of, for example, a £500 charge and the costs incurred when a severely disabled person who has hitherto lived with a carer has to go back into residential care because he cannot afford the £500 charge. It has been calculated that the cost to the Government of keeping a person in residential care in a home designed for four severely disabled people is £20,800 a year. That sum must be balanced against a community charge of £500. The Government stand to suffer a net loss of more than £20,000. That is a practical example of why this charge should not be imposed on severely disabled people who have live-in carers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Before I

1177
deal with the substance of the amendment, I should explain that Amendment No. 145 is defective. I am sure the noble Baroness accepts that. In her amendment the noble Baroness refers to the higher or middle rate of attendance allowance. As I am sure she will remember, there are only two rates—a higher and a lower rate of attendance allowance. There will continue to be only the two rates—
Baroness Seear: I cannot accept that.
Lord Henley: I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to continue. She is correct in thinking that there will be three rates for the successor to attendance allowance—the disability living allowance—which will apply to those under 65 years of age. However, attendance allowance will continue for the over-65s at the two rates. I believe it is worth pointing that out. For that reason I am sure that, however much we might disagree on the substance of this amendment later on, the noble Baroness will not wish to press it today.
I accept that the spirit of Amendment No. 145 is that a physically disabled person who would otherwise be eligible for a single person discount, should not be disadvantaged because he needs a second person living with him who would not otherwise be a member of the household. As in these circumstances the carer is generally the person whose presence in the household is adding to the bill, it would be more appropriate to the nature of the council tax to discount the carer rather than the disabled person. Amendment No. 145A adopts this approach and would give a discount to the live-in carer of a severely disabled person on attendance allowance where care is provided for at least 35 hours each week.
Discounts for carers are already provided for in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 9 of that schedule grants a discount for persons engaged in providing care and support to another person and meeting other conditions prescribed in regulations. Amendment No. 145 would be limited only to physically disabled people, whereas the carer discount in Schedule 1 will not be restricted in this way.
Carers are exempt from the community charge under similar provisions of the 1988 Act which have been implemented by regulations. Groups representing people with disabilities, including RADAR, have pressed us to extend these regulations on the introduction of the council tax to include a wider range of carers. At our suggestion they have prepared some specific proposals which we are considering carefully. As was discussed yesterday, we have already announced a special scheme of reductions to ensure that disabled people are fairly treated under the tax. In respect of carers we have made clear our intention to exempt dwellings left empty because the former resident has moved to provide care to another person. This will be achieved in regulations under Clause 4.
I emphasise that we are presently reviewing the council tax position of carers in the light of the helpful suggestions we have received from RADAR and others. We shall continue to take a constructive
1178
approach. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press the amendments on this occasion.
Baroness Seear: I thank the noble Lord for that relatively encouraging reply. In view of the fact that Amendment No. 145 is defective and Amendment No. 145A is, I understand, under consideration by the Government, I shall not press the amendments at this stage. However, unless we receive a satisfactory response at a further stage, I give notice that we certainly shall press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 145A not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Administration]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Bromptonmoved Amendment No. 146:
Page 86, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
("(c) that, where a liable person so requests, payments on account made in accordance with paragraph (b) above shall be accepted at weekly or fortnightly intervals at no additional cost to the payer;").
The noble Lord said: We have now reached Schedule 2 to the Bill. This is a simple amendment. It is designed to ensure that, wherever requested, weekly or monthly payments may be made, and accepted, at no additional cost to the payer. Since I tabled this amendment some Written Answers have been provided in another place by Mr. Robert Key. Mr. Key very kindly met representatives of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and me yesterday afternoon. He was extremely receptive to the arguments we put forward and promised that the department's representatives in this House would be in a listening mood. Therefore I have some hope that the amendment will be treated sympathetically.
I should say immediately that I consider the amendment to be defective. It provides that,
"where a liable person so requests",
he may pay weekly or fortnightly. It would be ridiculous if a millionaire requested to pay his contributions weekly or fortnightly. The amendment is therefore not as watertight as it might be.
Nevertheless, the purpose of the amendment is plain. People at the lower end of the income scale on very low incomes usually think in terms of weekly budgets. It is a great hardship if they are not allowed to pay their tax weekly or fortnightly. They are accustomed to doing so with their rent and it is only fair on those with very low incomes who know how to keep their heads above water only on a weekly basis that they should be able to pay their council tax on a weekly basis.
Councils have the power to allow that. At present they offer payment of community charge by 10 monthly instalments, but that is outside the capability to pay of those on very low incomes. I believe that councils even have the power to allow weekly or fortnightly payments. However, there is all the difference in the world between councils having a power and having a duty. They ought to have such a

1179
duty. At present it is left entirely to councils' discretion. Some councils are very good indeed and others are very bad indeed. The amendment is put forward in order to remove that gross discrepancy between the practice of good councils and the practice of bad councils. We all agree that in the matter of the collection of the community charge best practice should be followed. The amendment is designed to secure best practice.
Some people may say that it is not cost-effective to collect a low council tax by weekly or fortnightly instalments and that it could cost more than is received by the council in council tax. However, that would be so only in exceptional cases. I ask the Committee to consider whether it is cost-effective if the local taxpayer is unable to pay. Then the whole machinery of debt collection lumbers into action. That is extremely expensive for the council and it is very hard on the person who cannot pay his council tax. It may lead to distress and the entry of the bailiffs into the private dwelling. That would be extremely costly and would drive very poor people to desperation. It is with that in mind that I move the amendment.
Without commitment Mr. Robert Key listened patiently to the powerful accumulated evidence of the citizens' advice bureaux yesterday. The CABs have been inundated with clients who have serious difficulty in paying their community charge out of very low income. In order to maximise the ability to pay of those on very low incomes it is imperative that frequency of payment matches receipt of income.
I could give many illustrations but I have said enough to show that this is a matter of great importance. It is in the interests of the councils that something should be done because they could well earn a better reputation among their electorate. They could well be acting more in line with the Prime Minister's objectives as set out in the Citizen's Charter. For those two very good reasons alone the Government ought to give serious consideration to the amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is ahead of me. He saw the Minister yesterday and received a fairly favourable response, and I hope that the Government will agree to accept the amendment or come up with an alternative of their own.
The noble Lord made the point very strongly that there is a tremendous problem with hundreds of millions of pounds being owed in community charge. Everyone in this Chamber expects that money to be paid and I understand that an amendment to the Bill will be introduced to enable the courts to overcome the problem in relation to computer evidence. That money should be paid, but many people will find themselves in difficulties if they have to find that money as well as the council tax. I pay my community charge monthly by direct debit and I expect most Members of the Committee do the same. I believe that it would be better if it were written into the Bill that
1180
local authorities should accept either weekly or fortnightly payments, either in cash on in some form of direct debit. I imagine that many people who are paid weekly do not have bank accounts.
We have heard that certain councils already adopt the practice. Newcastle is one of them. Unfortunately they do not all do so. It would therefore be a very good idea if the Government made it clear that they expect such a facility to be provided and that that was written into the Bill. I hope that when he replies the Minister will give a favourable response.
Lord Monson: I understand the view of my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton but I should like to put a contrary view. First, the poorest people will not have to pay the tax in any event. Those who are slightly above that level are used to paying their electricity bills, gas bills, telephone bills, water rates, television licence and road fund licence annually, half yearly, quarterly or monthly. In aggregate those total a great deal more than the new tax will amount to. Therefore I cannot see that there is any case for a council having to go to the enormous expense of providing for people to pay fortnightly or weekly.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henderson. It is vital to create a new climate with the new council tax and find measures which will enable people on a low income to pay. One means of doing so is to set up weekly or fortnightly payment arrangements. Surely it is unfair that if one lives in one area the local authority will allow one to do that but if one lives over the boundary one is not allowed to do so.
The system already exists for council rents. Why can it not be extended? There is already a power to set up weekly payments but not a duty to do so. Does the Minister not agree that it is in line with the Citizen's Charter to enable people to have the same standards of service regardless of where they live? I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: There is a great deal to be said for the amendment. However, I suggest that, if the Government are prepared to look at the matter, instead of payment at weekly or fortnightly intervals they will consider weekly or monthly payments. Most people are paid either weekly or by the calendar month. Many people on incomes of £10,000 a year or less are extremely bad at budgeting and managing their expenses. Equally, there is a very good provision in paragraph 19 of this schedule and in the arrangements with Scottish housing bodies to collect the council tax.
I regret that I am not fully familiar with English procedure, but I should have thought that a similar provision could be made with English housing associations whereby they collect both rent and what used to be the rates and in future will be the council tax. That might well be worth considering. I feel that there is much to be said for the principle of the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This side of the Chamber very much supports the amendment in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was

1181
entirely right. When people are facing financial problems and an array of debts, weekly or fortnightly budgeting—fortnightly arrangements can be very useful for a council tenant who pays rent fortnightly —is a constructive way to deal with those problems.
I have only one reservation, which was indeed addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Given that the cost of giro payments and handling costs can amount to between 50p and 75p a transaction, there clearly needs to be a de minimis figure so that one does not spend more to collect than is brought in, as happens with the poll tax. We have that proviso. Nonetheless, the principle of the amendment has our full support.
Baroness Hamwee: With regard to the last point, I understand the difficulties that local authorities may encounter. Nevertheless, the balance must come down on the side of allowing weekly, fortnightly and—as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour—monthly payments. The provision for 10 payments a year does not fit in easily with budgeting on a monthly basis.
Unhappily, one of the growth industries at the moment is debt counselling. The advice given to those who find themselves in financial difficulties is to deal with the matter in small amounts at a time. We support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wise: I should very much like to support this amendment. We have heard and must appreciate that people on low incomes have extreme difficulty in meeting their commitments. They have even more difficulty in putting money aside at frequent intervals when they have extra commitments. It seems to me that such people are more likely to be able to meet their council tax if they can pay it in small amounts, weekly or fortnightly, as they receive payments, wages or benefit.
In respect of ability to pay, it is imperative that payment frequency should match the receipt of their income. Making weekly or fortnightly payments to a local authority is a well established principle. Most council tenants pay their rents in such a way. I am sure that giving people the right to pay their council tax at similar frequencies would minimise the possibility of arrears. Arrears of payment most certainly do not benefit anyone; the household gets deeper and deeper into debt while the local authority has a lower collection rate and incurs considerable cost in trying to obtain payment. The administrative costs of collecting payments as proposed in the amendment will surely be of benefit to everyone concerned and is best suited to individual needs.
It is interesting to note that some councils propose to collect payment in that way. One report from the Henley citizens' advice bureau mentions the South Oxfordshire District Council. I believe that Henley is the constituency of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Salisbury, the constituency of my honourable friend Sir Robert Key, is adopting this method and likewise Norwich City Council, with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is strongly connected. However, it seems unfair that
1182
some authorities will offer these facilities and others will not. The arrangements must operate right across the board to be fair and equitable. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I might briefly say that the noble Baroness, Lady David, whose name appears on the amendment and who feels very strongly about it, would have been present but for a more important engagement. She feels it right to be with her husband on his eightieth birthday.
Earl Howe: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others. I understand the arguments and the concern that they have expressed. However, there is a difficulty with the idea for reasons which I shall try to explain.
If council tax payers were allowed to choose how to pay their council tax, it would lead to unacceptable administrative difficulties for the local authorities. I say that despite the confidence that we all have in the way in which local authorities in general administer the collection of revenue. A council tax payer cannot sensibly be given the opportunity to decide the instalment regime that he wants to use because of the very serious burden that it would place on the authority's computer system. There is a real cost factor involved.
Having said that, I hope that I can reassure Members of the Committee in several ways. Paragraph 2(2) (b) of the schedule provides power to make regulations allowing an authority to set up its own instalment scheme in accordance with prescribed rules. That power will permit authorities to have a different instalment regime from the usual 10 monthly payments scheme. Authorities will therefore be able to set up a scheme to collect council tax at the same time as they collect council rents. That may well be at weekly or fortnightly intervals. The rules for such a scheme, which the Government will set up in consultation with local authorities, will ensure that it can be no less generous than the normal 10 monthly payments scheme. Because that scheme would apply to council tenants, it is likely to apply to people on low incomes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, reminded the Committee, the poorest among the liable persons will be entitled to benefits. One must not lose sight of that factor.
We should also remember that we cannot compel local authorities to institute a scheme of that kind. That would be quite wrong.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps the noble Earl would be kind enough to tell the Committee why it would be quite wrong. Why cannot Parliament compel local authorities in this very important respect to help a large number of people who have a low income and who find difficulty in paying?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should like to go further with that point. My noble friend says that it is not possible to make a local authority adhere to a statute that has been placed properly upon the statute book through parliamentary procedures. If Parliament says

1183
that local authorities must produce a scheme which will allow that kind of payment, can they say that they are not prepared to adhere to the statute? Is he saying that?
Earl Howe: No, I am not saying that. I was trying to say that it would be wrong to compel local authorities to institute a scheme of that kind, because that would mean that anybody would have the statutory right to insist that he pays weekly or fortnightly. That would pose unacceptable administrative difficulties for local authorities.
Local authorities will have the discretion to depart from their general scheme of payments for exceptional cases. They will not be tied in to a rigid regime. If they see particularly deserving cases in those situations they will be able to depart from their general scheme. That is a welcome element of flexibility that the authorities will have.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, admitted, the amendment as drafted is technically defective. Leaving that aside, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that as it stands the amendment would not be workable in practice and that authorities will be given adequate powers to make different instalment schemes without it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend on the Front Bench put his case with great confidence and I congratulate him on that. However, it was a bad case and there is no argument about that. The idea that it is not possible for Parliament to lay down how an impost imposed by Parliament can be paid is not acceptable. If it is acceptable for some local authorities to adopt a certain procedure and they have the blessing of the central powers in doing that, without any doubt the measure should be made universal. I suggest to my noble friend that this is a matter that he should be able to accept. I understand his argument. I also understand that when collecting money people like to do so in a way that is preferable to them. However, if people do not pay and the matter reaches court, the court will almost invariably allow any payment of this kind to be made by instalments. Why go that way round when we can lay down the methods of payment enabling everyone to have the freedom to pay—they are not suggesting that they are not going to pay—in a way that is most suitable to them?
Earl Howe: I was not saying that Parliament could not compel local authorities by incorporating a provision in the Bill. Of course we could do that. I was trying to say that it would not be sensible to do that given the unacceptable adverse consequences that would ensue in terms of administrative difficulties. We have here a flexible scheme which will enable local authorities to devise weekly or fortnightly methods of payment for council tenants who, almost by definition, will be those who will be most in need of that provision. Discretion will be allowed in
1184
particularly deserving cases where the individual involved is not a council tenant. That is a satisfactory outcome.
Lord Hughes: I cannot understand why the Minister is speaking about this discretion as being something new. I refer to giving the authorities power to exercise discretion so that they may accept payment on a weekly or fortnightly basis. We have been told from more than one part of the Committee that many authorities are doing that already. Is the Minister suggesting that the authorities which are already using that procedure are doing so without having the power to do it? If the authorities do have the power to follow that procedure at the present time, what does the Government scheme add to the present situation?
Earl Howe: There is no suggestion that local authorities are exceeding their powers at the moment. We are discussing a new tax. The Bill needs to set up the necessary regimes to enable local authorities to collect the tax. That is quite distinct from the community charge.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not intend to enter into this debate because I had fully expected that the Government would accept this very reasonable and essential amendment. I can only express my surprise that the Government are opposing it. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that it is essential for there to be some universal provision of this kind otherwise one will have people in one local authority being in a privileged position vis-à-vis people in an adjacent authority. In other words, Reading may very well put in a weekly scheme, but seven miles away the authority at Wokingham will not allow a weekly scheme although it is part of the Reading conurbation. In the case of large cities and large conurbations the absurdity will be even worse than that.
Having had experience of the difficulties involved in the collection of the poll tax, I should have thought that the Government would wish to make it as easy as possible for people to pay. I assure the Minister that there are still large numbers of working-class, ordinary people in this country who budget not by the month or the year, but by the week. If they are not allowed to budget by the week there are difficulties, and the people who are owed money are also in difficulties.
I urge the Government to reconsider their attitude on this matter and to make universal provision for weekly and certainly fortnightly collections. The noble Earl said that that would be administratively difficult. I must go back to my experience with local government when I was chairman of the finance and general purposes committee. The borough treasurer, in persuading me that he needed a computer, said "We need a computer so that we can more easily make weekly collections of debts due to the authority". Of course I fell for that argument. I said "Of course, borough treasurer, you must have a computer because people must be enabled to pay their debts weekly if that is the way they wish to do it".
Now I am being told that this great computer, which we introduced at huge cost, is unable to allow

1185
ordinary folk to pay their debts on a weekly basis. It is absurd that this nonsense should be trotted out by the Government. I sympathise with the noble Earl because he is obviously reading from a brief. However, I hope that his own common sense will tell him that what Members of the Committee from all sides have been saying this afternoon is sound sense and that the Minister should now accept the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Although it may need some alteration, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in principle and bring back his own amendment at Report stage in order to deal with this matter.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I must confess to a sense almost of unreality about some of the speeches we have heard. I have sat listening, perhaps not as long as some Members of the Committee, to plea after plea from the party opposite for local autonomy. It was said "Let local authorities make up their own minds. Why do the Government have to impose all these factors?" As my noble friend rightly said, the Government are now saying that there is a pattern which will apply universally, but where they are needed regulations will be made to allow local authorities to vary the system of payment. That will leave the local authorities to decide for their own areas how this scheme is best administered.
For the life of me I cannot see why it should be necessary for the Committee to seek to impose an obligation on every authority to allow any taxpayer who wishes to do so to pay fortnightly or monthly. I am not a great computer boffin, but I can well understand that it would enormously complicate the programming of computers if there were a wide variety of methods of payment. I can understand that that would add to the costs and perhaps increase the chances of error.
I believe that my noble friend made a most convincing case for leaving the Bill as it is. I would like to leave each local authority to decide how to use the power in the regulations which will be made and to which my noble friend referred.
4 p.m.
Lord Desai: I welcome the Government's recent conversion to local autonomy. The point in this case is that the taxpayers should have as much choice as possible; action should not be taken for the convenience of local authorities. The taxpayers should be given maximum facilities to pay the council tax as and when they wish, provided that the tax is paid. I must point out that enabling a computer to deal with payments weekly as against fortnightly is an extremely simple matter of software programming. Do not let anyone pretend that insuperable administrative difficulties will be caused. If the Government do not wish to agree to the provision, let them say so, but they should not say that their action enhances local authority freedom. The council tax should be taxpayer friendly and not local authority friendly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am sorry to differ so violently with my noble friend whom for a long time I have supported on all manner of issues. However, if one carries his argument to its logical conclusion we shall have to give the local authority the power to decide whether there should be a tax. If central government decide that there is a need for a tax they are entitled to lay down in the interests of the whole community how it should be collected. I believe that in this case the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has put forward a good argument.
I do not know how many of my noble friends think in partisan terms on such issues; I often do. The whole of the parliamentary system is based upon the party system and parliaments rely upon that. I know very well that the absence of a provision similar to that suggested in the amendment made the poll tax so objectionable to so many people. I am convinced that the damage done to the party—which happens to be the party in government—was to a large extent due not to the principle of the poll tax, which was good and which I shall support in any argument, but to the way in which the tax was presented and collected. That was its Achilles' heel and I do not wish to see a repeat of the damage in respect of the council tax.
Lord Monson: Perhaps we may look at the realities of the argument. We are talking of little more than a payment of £20 per month by the poorer people at whom the amendment is directed. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, spoke about the problems of working people. I accept that he knows a great deal more about them than I do. However, I happen to know a large number of farm workers' widows who do not have the slightest difficulty in saving £20 per month to pay the nominal rent on their cottages. I do not see why other people cannot do so, bearing in mind that they pay for their electricity, gas, water, TV licence and car at monthly or longer intervals.
Viscount Mountgarret: I strongly support the amendment if only because of the spurious argument that my noble friend put forward; that it would make the council tax administratively difficult to collect. I suggest that that is a red herring because there would be no difficulty. Already people have the option of paying the poll tax monthly by standing order—the total amount is divided by 10 and not 12, which is even more complicated—half-yearly or quarterly. I believe that the provision would be simple to administer, computers or no computers. When one's bank statements are delivered one merely ticks off what has been paid and what has not. A necessary and useful addition to the Bill would be such provision allowing or requiring local authorities to accept requests for weekly payments made by people who find it difficult to think ahead more than that, which for whatever reason many people find difficult.
Lord Ross of Newport: I bow totally to local autonomy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that local authorities should be left to do their own thing in as many cases as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, put his finger on the problem. When the Finance and General Purposes Committee asks for

1187
the advice of the Treasury, the Treasury will say that it would be much more convenient to take the payments on a monthly basis and not on a weekly basis. Unfortunately, if my experience is anything to go by, the committee will probably accept the Treasury's advice.
These amendments were suggested by the CAB, which deal day in and day out with many people who have a problem with paying their debts. We are trying to help such people. If the amendment is defective and cannot be voted on today, and if the Government cannot take on board the widespread feeling in the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will say that he will come back on Report with another amendment. The requirement in the amendment is necessary and it should be written into the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is a point as yet not mentioned which the Government should consider. I hope that the Committee will not vote on the amendment today because the balance of the argument needs to be considered by the Government —I do not believe that the Ministers on the Front Bench are listening.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the community charge was first introduced in my area boxes were placed in supermarkets in which one could deposit one's weekly payment. That was greatly appreciated by many people, not only by those who used them. For all I know not many people used the boxes but the idea was considered to be user friendly and a good one. The boxes were removed as the local authority began to want to be less user friendly and to try less hard to collect the tax. The boxes are no longer in the supermarkets—indeed, many of the facilities no longer exist. I believe that the Government ought to look carefully at the amendment and ascertain whether the local authority case is genuine. User friendliness is connected with the Citizen's Charter to which I personally am most committed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, intends to test the opinion of the Committee. Although the amendment may be defective I understand that that is not necessarily a bar to pursuing it. Members on this side of the Committee would certainly support the noble Lord on the understanding that, if his amendment were successful, we may wish to come back on Report with a modest de minimis clause in order to avoid the absurdity of spending more to collect less. However, we entirely support the substance of the amendment.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that the legislation should be taxpayer friendly. It would be decidedly taxpayer unfriendly to have a system of payment for a small minority of council tax payers which involved local authorities in inordinate and unwarranted expense. Local government taxes are the only type of payment which households have a
1188
statutory right to pay by 10 instalments. Gas, electricity, telephone and other bills may be paid in monthly instalments but not weekly or fortnightly. Some council tax bills will be modest—for example, in Westminster and Wandsworth—due to the prudent policies adopted by those councils. Are Members of the Committee really saying that such bills should be payable in weekly instalments, perhaps only £1 or £2 per week?
I am not convinced of the case that Members of the Committee have made. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, appealed for common sense. Common sense works both ways: I believe that it is the task of government to be responsible in framing their legislation and not to burden council tax payers with the undue costs that would be involved in administering a universal collection scheme of that kind.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am sorry that the noble Earl made a second speech in such a vein. It did not take on board the evident opinion of the Committee which came from all quarters. There have been two dissidents. One was my noble friend Lord Monson, who rightly said that councils should not be out of pocket as regards the collection of the charge because that would bear heavily on other taxpayers. The other was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who joined my noble friend in a minority of two. I should have thought, honestly, that if one compared the wide experience of the great number of citizens' advice bureaux throughout the country with the experience of my noble friend Lord Monson and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, most Members of the Committee would put their faith in that of the citizens' advice bureaux. They are dealing with people at the coal face. They know the problems of those who have weekly incomes and who therefore pay their expenses weekly. I wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Monson or Lord Jenkin of Roding, have ever had to budget weekly. I wonder whether they really know what that is like.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must tell the noble Lord that for many years I have been one of those who has believed that one of the weaknesses of our economic system is that, unlike any other country in Europe, people are hooked on the idea of the week rather than the month. The contrast in pay between those who are paid weekly and those who are paid monthly is one of the problems which we face. We should steadily encourage—as a great many industries and employers are encouraging—people to think and budget in terms of monthly payments.
I recognise that some people still budget very carefully on a weekly basis. Is it so impossible for the citizens advice bureaux to draw this problem to the attention of the local authorities in their area and ask them to use their powers? Why should this provision be imposed universally on the entire country?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Does the noble Lord imagine that the citizens advice bureaux have not done

1189
so? There are local authorities which do not take the trouble to make such a provision and that causes me to move the amendment.
The noble Lord did not answer my question as to whether he had any experience of budgeting on a weekly basis. He skilfully avoided that by making a speech on the desirability of everybody budgeting at monthly or longer intervals.
I am pleased to see that the Leader of the House is present. He will have listened to the arguments and will recognise that Members of the Committee on all sides have supported the amendment. The support does not come only from Members of the Committee sitting opposite him. That is extremely important.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that there should be a de minimis provision. The amendment is defective in that respect. I agree also with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the amendment is defective. As I admitted at the outset, it is not acceptable that weekly or fortnightly payments should be available at the request of the payer. Therefore, for those two reasons I shall not press the amendment at this stage.
However, some of the arguments advanced by the Minister against the amendment are extremely feeble. He said that it would be an administrative difficulty for the poor computer to have to cope with. It must be a very old-fashioned and powerless computer which could not cope with the small additional burden which this amendment would impose. Therefore, I cannot take that as a serious argument.
Earl Howe: It is not simply the "poor computer", as the noble Lord puts it. It is the time involved in accepting people's coins and banknotes as they go to local authorities to pay their bills on a monthly or fortnightly basis, and the costs involved in manning the appropriate desks. It is all concerned with man hours.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I ask the noble Earl how it is that the local authority of the Secretary of State's own constituency of Henley manages to cope with this system without detriment to the richer members of his constituency as does Salisbury's local authority in Mr. Robert Key's constituency. They manage that without protests from the Monsons of this world. I do not see why other local authorities should not do so.
The problem is that some local authorities do not follow that system. It is not good enough to have regulations which empower local authorities to do so. Otherwise, we shall not bring the worst practice up to the best practice. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on this issue. It shows that the feeling of the Committee is united in its belief that something should be done. We have spent 45 minutes on the amendment and I am amazed that it has engendered such interest. I hope that the Government understand that the latest pronouncements on the Citizen's Charter by the Prime Minister go very strongly in conformity with the amendment. They include greater choice and greater user-friendliness. I
1190
believe that seven out of the eight points which the Prime Minister mentioned recently support the principle behind the amendment.
Finally, Mr. Robert Key gave an undertaking to listen to the arguments. I hope the Minister will tell his honourable friend that there is all-party support for the amendment, and that the Committee wants something to be done on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Industrial Relations Reform
4.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the Government's legislative intentions following the consultation on the Green Paper Industrial Relations in the 1990s which was published in July last year.
"As with all our previous trade union legislation, the proposals I am announcing today have two main objectives: first, to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions; secondly, to protect employees, employers and the community at large against the abuse of industrial power. Each of these proposals is carefully designed to meet a clear deficiency in our present arrangements.
"This has been acknowledged by the organisations which have commented on the Green Paper.
"The CBI say in their response that they
'warmly welcome the Government's continued commitment to reviewing the law governing the conduct of industrial relations'.
The Engineering Employers Federation say that they
'strongly support the Government's objective of providing a balanced and effective framework of trade union and industrial relations law'
and that
'the step by step approach has been seen by all to have worked successfully and it is right that it should continue'.
The Institute of Personnel Management say that
'the Green Paper is primarily aimed at particular abuses which it is the duty of Government to address in order to protect the rights of the individual'.
"In all, we have had over 100 responses to the Green Paper. These have come from employers organisations, individual companies, trade unions and other organisations and from individual people. The number of responses is in itself a clear indication of the interest the Green Paper has

1191
aroused and the importance of the issues it has raised. Most of the proposals it contains have been widely welcomed.
"I deal first with the proposals to protect the public against strikes and other forms of industrial action. The first proposal was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his statement on the Citizen's Charter.
"We proposed in the Citizen's Charter to provide a new right for members of the public in relation to unlawful industrial action which affects a public service. This proposal has been widely welcomed. At present, the employer has the right to bring proceedings against a trade union which organises an unlawful strike. Members of the public, who are usually the specific target of industrial action, have no such right. If the employer does nothing, the citizen is defenceless.
"We therefore intend to introduce legislation to establish a new right for members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting a public service if the employer concerned fails to use the remedies available to him. This proposal has been widely welcomed. It will enhance the protection of the public and it will be a further deterrent to unlawful industrial action.
"The consultations have also shown that there is strong support for legislation to require trade unions to give seven days' notice of strikes. Strike notice is a well-established feature of the law in other countries. This requirement will help to protect the general public against lightning strikes in the public services. It will also allow employers to take steps to safeguard jobs and businesses.
"In addition, there has been strong support for the proposal to reduce the scope for intimidation and fraud by requiring strike ballots to be conducted by post and to be subject to independent scrutiny.
"These measures will add significantly to the protection which our legislation already provides against strikes which are deliberately targeted on the life of the community. We intend to introduce legislation to implement all of them.
"I turn now to the rights of individual union members. The first concerns an employee's freedom to join the union of his choice. Only last year we saw how building workers who left the construction union—UCATT—when its leadership fell into the hands of the far left were prevented from joining the General and Municipal Boilermakers, even after the GMB had indicated that it would welcome them. That was clear evidence of how the operation of the TUC's Bridlington Principles can deny employees the chance to belong to the union of their choice. Contrary to the claims of the TUC, only a minority of employers have expressed reservations about the change in the law we propose to make. We therefore propose to introduce legislation which will give individual employees the right to join the union of their
1192
choice, free from interference from any arrangement between trade union bosses which is designed to deny them that choice.
"The consultation also showed widespread support for the proposition that the law should not allow trade union dues to be deducted from an employee's salary without his or her individual consent. Since the Green Paper was published there has been further evidence of the scope for abuse of "check-off" arrangements. On 8th December, for example, the Sunday Times reported that union subscriptions had been deducted from the pay of some 10,000 construction workers in London but that these subscriptions had never reached their trade union. The case for reform of the law is clear.
"Some employers have said that they believe a requirement to review the check-off annually would be unnecessary and burdensome. I have therefore decided to accept a proposal from the Institute of Personnel Management that employers should be required to seek the consent of their employees to the check-off every three years. In addition, we propose to introduce legal safeguards which will ensure that in future no employee has union subscriptions deducted from his pay without his individual consent.
"Again, no one has seriously questioned the need for further legislation to protect union members against the sort of financial mismanagement which was revealed in the Lightman Report into the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers. Nor is there any serious doubt that the law on trade union elections needs to be strengthened in the light of the ballot rigging in the 1990 elections for the National Executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
"I have decided to adopt a suggestion which was put to my Department in the course of the consultation that unions should be required to employ a mailing house or some other external agency to distribute and store voting papers. This proposal is, I believe, the most effective way to ensure that electoral fraud of the kind which occurred in the Transport and General Workers Union is not repeated. I have also accepted the advice of a number of organisations, including the TUC, that, for security reasons, union members should not have access to the names and addresses of other union members. Instead I propose that the independent scrutineer should be allowed such access on behalf of any union members who are concerned that the list may not be accurate.
"The consultations have indicated a wide range of views on the proposal in the Green Paper relating to the legal status of collective agreements. There was both support for and opposition to the specific proposal on which we sought views. Some employer organisations have put forward alternative suggestions. This is an important and complex issue. We shall continue to consider the scope for amending the law in the light of the comments we have received and, if appropriate, we shall consult further before taking a final decision.

1193
"It should be clear to everyone, Mr. Speaker, that this has been a genuine and productive consultation. We have modified some of our proposals in the light of the views we have received. But the consultations have shown that there is widespread majority support amongst employers for a great majority of the proposals in the Green Paper.
"The legislative plans I have announced today are designed to consolidate and build on the improvement in industrial relations which we have achieved over the last 12 years. They will increase the rights of individual members of the public, of individual trade union members, of individual employees and of the community at large. They will ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law in order to maintain that progress in the 1990s.
"The clearest evidence of the progress we have achieved so far is our record on strikes. More working days were lost because of strikes in the last 12 months of the last Labour Government than have been lost in all of the last five years put together.
"No one should be surprised by that stark contrast. Before 1980 the law gave trade unions a virtually unlimited licence to organise strikes and industrial action, no matter how remote from the original dispute. There was no requirement for ballots before strikes and the law allowed flying pickets to spread the disruptive effects of industrial action far and wide.
"The choice before this House and the country is clear. On the one hand, there is the threat to roll back the legislation of the last 12 years, to put the trade unions back in the driving seat and make strikes easier, longer, more frequent and more damaging than ever before. That is the policy of the party opposite. On the other hand, we can carry forward the process of reform and build on the achievements of the last 12 years. That is what the decisions I have announced today will do and that is why they deserve the support of the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, first let me apologise for my voice. As everyone can understand and hear, I have an awful cold.
I thank the Minister for making the Statement, but not, I am afraid, for the content. I shall not mince words. I believe that the Statement is unnecessary and vindictive. It is another unnecessary intervention by government in industrial relations. No one really wants it. The employers to whom I have spoken do not want it and I am surprised by what the Minister said regarding the CBI's present reaction; that was not its initial reaction. It was not the reaction of the Chamber of Commerce or other employers' organisations.
It is not the view of the public from what one can see. The recent polls indicate that unions are not unpopular and there is a substantial view that there has been quite enough anti-union legislation
1194
introduced. In fact we have had too much legislation in this field already, much of it in contravention of ILO regulations.
The proposal allowing individuals to sue unions is quite absurd. Employers are already able to do so if the relevant provisions relating to the dispute action have not been carried out. Do the Government want to open the door to maverick actions against unions? It may well be a bonanza for lawyers but not for anyone else. It is not the way to handle industrial relations. I am not surprised that few employers have taken the opportunity to take the unions to court. Most sensible employers in the public and private sectors realise that that is not the way to settle industrial issues.
The proposals regarding deduction of union dues will not commend themselves to employers as a whole. It will mean extra administration for employers as well as unions. In my view there is no evidence of substantial abuse. Some time ago I saw representatives in this House of a small staff association. They were appalled at the prospects held out in the recent Green Paper; they were also confused. They said, "We are a staff union; we are not affiliated to the TUC nor the Labour Party. A lot of our members vote Conservative. How can they do this to us?" They saw it as hampering their activities. I had to explain to them that the Government are against collectivity; they do not like employees combining together to protect their interests, even if they do so in a house union without outside affiliations.
The Statement underlines the correctness of my perceptions at that time. I repeat that there is no evidence of widespread abuse despite what the Minister said. Generally speaking, the system works well. So why disturb it and place extra burdens on both employers and unions?
The Government want to weaken trade union organisation and seek to do so by attacking funding arrangements. It is already the practice to seek authority to deduct subscriptions from pay from the individuals concerned. There is no need for further legislation.
Why do the Government want to undermine still further the authority of the Trades Union Congress? The TUC system for regulating relations between unions has worked reasonably well since 1939. Of course there have been one or two hiccups, as there always will be in any system, but its decisions have invariably been upheld by the courts when they have been challenged.
I am a member of the current TUC disputes panel. I suppose I should declare an interest, and also state that I am not a trade union boss. As far as possible we do our best to take time to reach our decisions and to make sure that they are fair.
The Government are in favour of soft regulation in other fields, notably the finance sector. Why are they not in this one? There have been enough frauds in the finance sector, but in that sector soft regulation is all right while it is not all right where trade unions are concerned. In any event, it seems quite inconsistent to seek Japanese involvement, which frequently means single union agreements, and then, by means of this

1195
legislation, try to inhibit the success of such agreements. For the Government to introduce measures to make that even more difficult seems rather absurd.
As for balance and cooling-off periods, why do the Government not understand that there is always a greater degree of membership participation in a workplace ballot than there is in a purely postal one? A lot of postal ballot forms are ignored or put aside to go later and then are not used. A workplace ballot stimulates interest in the workplace and the returns are higher. But perhaps greater membership involvement is not what the Government want because that tends to increase trade union membership. In my view, the Government want union membership to decrease.
As for the hoary old chestnut of cooling-off periods, I am surprised that that has surfaced again. It could very well be a heating-up period when a campaign could get off the ground. I am sure that that is not what the Government want.
The Government have made reference to practice in some EC countries. I would remind the Minister that in those countries there is a complete framework of trade union rights quite foreign to anything we have in this country. To attempt to introduce such practice against a background of declining legislative protection for trade unions and their members is quite outrageous.
All in all, this is another piece of legislation intended to weaken unions on ideological grounds. The real reason is, I believe, clear. The Government perceive unions as providing protection against exploitation, and they are right. Unions would plead guilty to that. That is what they are there for. But this Government, hard on the heels of Maastricht, are interested in a low wage economy. A particularly perceptive news editor headlined the Maastricht story with, "Welcome to Mr. Major's wonderful bargain basement." That is accurate. The Government are out to create sweat-shop Britain but they cannot say so openly because the British electorate would not like that very much. So we have another set of legislative proposals designed to weaken protective organisations. This is part of a general strategy.
I hope that these proposals never have the opportunity of coming before us as a Bill. If they do, noble Lords can rest assured that this side will oppose them vigorously.
Baroness Seear: From these Benches we also wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The Government seem to have chosen a day on which speakers on both Opposition Benches are practically speechless, which must be a matter of some comfort to them.
On these Benches we accepted the need for much of the earlier legislation the Government put through. But, as we have said on previous occasions, enough is enough. Reforms have gone through, many of them beneficial, but further legislation at this stage is not in the least necessary and will be seen as being vindictive.
1196
There are items in the Statement of different weight and importance. Obviously, fraud has to be dealt with. Other matters are of a much more wide-ranging and fundamental nature.
Behind the proposed legislation there seems to be a desire further to weaken trade unions. Any decent industrial system requires effective, well organised trade unionism. We would be the first to admit that there have been abuses of trade union power in the past, but as all our competitors know you cannot run a successful industrial system unless there is a proper, responsible trade union movement. That is needed. The impression one gets from these proposals, as one does from some but not all previous legislation, is that the Government do not accept that it is necessary. If we are to move into a successful future we want a good, positive industrial relations policy. There is nothing good and positive about the proposals the noble Lord is putting forward today.
I note that the Government are claiming credit for the fall in the number of strikes in recent years. They are saying that this shows how successful their policy has been. But any examination of the statistics will show that strikes always fall dramatically in times of unemployment. There is absolutely no point in going on strike in days of unemployment. Why do the Government think that it is their legalisation on trade unions which has reduced the number of strikes in this country and that the reduction is not the inevitable result of unemployment? On the one hand, people are extremely reluctant to take strike action because they want to hold on to their jobs, and on the other hand a strike is a weapon with very little power because when employers have very little work on their books they do not mind very much if people go on strike. So there is not much point in striking. The Government have never explained why they think it is their legislation and not the state of the labour market which is having an effect on the level of strikes in this country.
In the Statement, the Government refer to the right of union members to join the union of their choice. I do not think the right hand knows what the left hand is doing in the Department of Employment when it can produce such a statement at the present time, having only last week told the security guards that they could not join a union of their choice if that union was affiliated to the Labour Party. I do not know how the noble Lord squares that with the Statement here that the rights of individual union members require that they should be free to choose.
This is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There may be some abuses still, but wholesale legislation of this kind is unnecessary. I find it very odd, not to say naive, that the Government should call in aid the fact that some employers are enthusiastic about it. Industrial relations are about the balance of power between those representing the employees and those representing the employers. Legislation so biased in favour of the employers is surely to be expected to have approval from the employers, but good industrial relations require a proper balance of power between the two.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in saying how bravely and resolutely the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, replied to my Statement. I hope that they will both be better in a day or two. I was going to congratulate them on accepting the Statement. However, that would be too much to ask.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that the Statement was unnecessary and vindictive. I cannot accept that. I believe that our step-by-step approach over the past 10 or 12 years has been the right approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that her party accepted that there was a need for the earlier legislation. I believe that at the time her party felt that there was no need for the legislation or for the various provisions of that step-by-step approach. Now her party accepts that they have been beneficial. Even the party opposite accepts that much of the union legislation brought forward over the past 12 years has been beneficial to the balance between—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Viscount looks at the record, he will find that there were aspects of the earlier legislation which received support from these Benches.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I accept that. The present situation is that now all the previous legislation seems to have been accepted, whereas at the time it was very often opposed. We have the same approach now. I believe that the proposed legislation, which is opposed now will be accepted as being very useful and helpful in time to come.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made the point that individuals do not need the power to take action against unlawful strikes in the public services. It is the fact that employers have not exercised their right that we feel that individuals need that increased right. It is against individuals that strike action is being taken and against their own convenience.
I referred in the Statement to a number of abuses. It is against those abuses that we need to take action. We need to protect the rights of individuals and give them the choice. That is what the proposed legislation will do. We are giving people the opportunity of joining the union of their choice; we are giving them the choice to see whether they want their union dues taken through the check-off. That is the choice we are giving them. Also, there are abuses which are recognised abuses. We are taking steps to make certain that those abuses are corrected.
Nothing in the general employment law or in the Green Paper proposals contravenes any ILO convention ratified by the United Kingdom. Where ILO committees have made observations on aspects of the UK law, the Government have always responded and they will continue to respond as and when appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, missed the point about the fact that the number of strikes has fallen. Of course in a period of recession what she says is entirely correct. But what I said was that over the past five years, when employment was at its record high, the number of strikes had fallen. Over five years the number of strikes was smaller than the number of
1198
strikes in the last 12 months of the previous Labour Government. That was the figure that I quoted: five years—not this year, not last year—but over five years.
The noble Baroness also raised the point again of the security guards. She said that they could not join the union of their choice. There is nothing that we have said that has prevented them from joining any union that they want to join. It is a question, however, of recognition of one union now that the security guards will no longer be non-industrial civil servants. It is a recognition agreement, rather than expecting members to join either one union or another. It is a question of balance, and I believe that we have achieved a balance. We have identified abuses and we seek to correct them. We seek to give people more choice. I believe that we have done just that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating this most important Statement, which is of great interest to all of your Lordships. It is a most admirable Statement indicating a very proper approach to an immensely important matter. It is the most recent in a succession of measures which have been carried by Parliament over the past 12 years to deal with problems of industrial relations. What makes it impossible to argue against it, and against them, is the unchallengeable fact that industrial relations have steadily improved over the years very largely as a result of that legislation. The Bill will carry that process a stage further and fits in extremely well with the previous legislation. For that reason, I am glad to see this proposal put forward.
I was pleased to see the provision under which a member of the public will be able to bring proceedings against a union in the light of and as a result of industrial action, where at the moment he is unable to do so. The point is that in the public sector union industrial action is aimed to get its way by putting pressure on the public. In the public sector, the employer, is not in any degree affected. The employer does not lose profits; his remuneration is not affected. The pressure is put on the public not, as in the private sector, on the management and owners. It is because so far the public have been unable to take proceedings in these cases that a weakness in the legal structure has been revealed. I am delighted that this is now to be put right.
It is also necessary to deal, as the Bill proposes to deal, with various fiddles in connection with union elections. It is so important because the unions are themselves so important to the working of our economy that their operation should be free from difficulties caused by malpractices of one kind or another in the conduct of their elections. It is a good thing—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken for three minutes now.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am infinitely obliged to the noble Lord, who has just wasted another minute. My

1199
Lords, I was about to conclude by saying that I am delighted with this measure. I hope that it will be brought forward very soon. I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his remarks. They coincide with my own feelings exactly. This is a proper approach. He pointed very rightly to the fact that industrial relations have steadily improved over the past 12 years.
I ask myself: why should we suddenly want to change that fact? What is it that we are being accused of that we should suddenly want to change the industrial climate that we have steadfastly sought to improve over the past 12 years? So, these are corrections of abuses.
I am glad that my noble friend indicated his support for the individual being able to take action against unlawful strikes in the public sector. The remedy is an injunction that the strikes should stop. That is how it should be. There is no question of compensation; it is an injunction that the strikes should stop. I am quite certain that that is the right balance.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has kindly repeated the Statement. Will he ask his right honourable friend to reconsider three areas of it? The first is the nature of the response, a point to which my noble friend referred. I listened carefully to what the noble Viscount said. I took it that the organisations—and the representative employer organisations, which is what matters—were in agreement with the objectives. However, the noble Viscount did not say whether they approved of the particular proposals.
As I understand the position, the check-off proposals were opposed or doubted by the following representative organisations; namely, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Institute of Management, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Personnel Management. The public service injunction proposals were also opposed. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can take heart—they may go little further than the existing law. So far as concerns Bridlington, serious doubt was thrown on the proposals by three of the representative employer organisations. Many noble Lords must surely have had similar experience to some of us. Sensible personnel managers fear the day when the Government make the Bridlington agreement between unions—which does not oppress individuals—inoperable. British industrial relations will suffer.
The second area relates to the way in which the Government look at the international and comparative position of British employment law. To take a point in passing, the noble Viscount and his fellow Ministers always rejoice, as do we, in the fall in the number of days lost through industrial action. But were he a member of a government in any Western European country except Denmark over the past 10 years, he could show the same fall. No doubt his
1200
counterpart in Germany is saying "We must keep co-determination and the precise system that we have. Look how the numbers are falling". As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested, it is not a serious argument about the nature of law and the nature of liberty.
The noble Viscount suggested that strike notices are well established in other countries, but he omitted a very important feature. In those strike notices there is invariably in Western Europe something which makes the process more even handed. In France, after a strike notice in the public sector the employer must negotiate. That is also the position in Italy, under the law of 1990. In Ireland, under the new law of 1990, seven days' notice secures protection for unions against an injunction in the High Court. Where is the even-handed balance in the Government's proposals?
Finally, the noble Viscount said that there was no evidence that we were in breach or had been said to be in breach of the International Labour Organisation convention on freedom of association. I ask him to look at every annual report of the committee of experts and at the freedom of association report on case 1540 of 1991. The governing body also adopted the proposition that the legislation of this country contravenes the convention of 1948 on freedom of association. The fact that it has not been adopted in a paragraph of the report of the annual body meeting in the ILO does not alter the annual statements which have been made and to which the Government have never responded. Will the noble Viscount ask his right honourable friend to look again at that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked me to reconsider three areas. He referred to the balance of those recommending the proposals. All I can tell him is that the requirement to give express written consent before check-off deductions can be made was favoured by a significant majority of employers. It was because of those employers who said that they would not require an annual review of the check-off deductions that it is recommended that that should now be done over three years. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that during our consultations we have listened: we have listened to the arguments put forward and we have acted accordingly.
I shall not give the precise details of the replies that we received because, as with all previous similar consultation exercises, we ask for and treat responses on the basis that they have been offered in confidence. That applies both to the content of the response and to the identification of the source. That is right. We wanted to get replies in all honesty from those people who wrote in.
The noble Lord asked me to compare what happens abroad with what happens in this country. We have to consider what the position was some 13 years ago regarding the number of strikes we were having at that time. It is not good enough just to say that we now have the same low number of strikes as they have on the Continent. Thirteen years ago we had a colossal number of strikes. It put many people at risk of losing

1201
their jobs and of being able to get around the country. It is against that record and the record now that the climate of industrial relations has improved so much.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord can say that he is not in favour of a cooling off period and that the seven day notice period is in some way against the interests of the company, the employees or the country. I find that difficult to understand. That is what he is saying. He is saying that it may be all right for other countries but not for this country. The noble Lord has his own logic, although I sometimes find it difficult to follow.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I made a similar point. I was saying that in other countries where there was a requirement there was also a benevolent framework of trade union law. We do not have that benevolent framework here. That was the point that I was making.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. In this country we have a much more voluntary approach to industrial relations and not the straitjacket that exists in a good many European countries.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that noble Lords on this side of the House have no issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, or the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, on the question that we need a responsible trade union movement. The issue appears to arise when the party which I support introduces legislation to restrict abuse and is then accused—as it is accused today—of weakening the structure. The truth is that it is strengthening the structure.
Does my noble friend agree that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done great service by making this Statement, as this mini-debate today has evinced? An election is coming. This is a most highly-sensitive political issue. It is an issue that we cannot decide in this House by debate. It is an issue for the country to decide. So we know already where we stand on the battle of the manifestos: it is the party that I support against the party opposite and the Liberal Democrat Party, which joined forces to oppose our proposals for reform. This issue is of vast political importance. I thank my noble friend the Minister for having come clean and for having come out into the open so that everyone knows where the Government stand.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The Green Paper proposals were made in July of last year and the consultation period then took three months. The Statement is a response to that consultation period. In my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I demonstrated that we have listened to those whom we consulted and have even adjusted our original proposals.
I agree with my noble friend that restricting abuse strengthens the structure of unions. It is not a question of trying to weaken the unions. It is a question of protecting freedom—protecting the freedom of
1202
individuals to join the union of their choice. The one thing that has attracted inward investment from abroad is the operation of single union agreements.
Lord Greene of Harrow Weald: My Lords, I should like to address the Minister on one or two points that have been raised. I am in agreement with the point of view that we must have a responsible trade union movement in this country. However, we also need some responsible employers. I am not saying, as the Minister implied, that all trade unions are wrong; neither am I saying that all employers are wrong. I worked for some time on the trade union side. I should have thought that the proposed legislation will not make it any easier for the trade union movement to operate.
One or two points were made by the Minister in connection with the deduction of trade union contributions through the pay bill. What makes the noble Viscount think that trade unions have obtained that without agreement with the employers? Some time ago, when Dr. Beeching was chairman of the British Railways Board—or, I should say, the late Lord Beeching—I negotiated with him for the deduction of trade union contributions through the pay bill. He said to me at that time, "I would be prepared to do that, if you are prepared to do something for me." He then asked me whether I would support him in connection with the question of payment by cheque. Those were the days before we were able to obtain payment by transfer to the bank. I agreed that I would do my best in regard to the payment of wages and salaries by cheque, and he in turn agreed to have the contributions deducted through the pay bill.
What makes the Minister think that I want to hand my money over to the employer if I do not like him? He might keep my contributions. If we get into any difficulties so far as concerns industrial action, the question of handing over money to the employer seems to me to be entirely wrong. It was done at the time to which I referred because computers were being introduced into industry. Therefore, it was quite easy, and good from a commercial point of view, for deductions of contributions to the trade unions to be made through the pay bill.
As I have trade union experience, there are many other points that I should like to make; but, after all is said and done, it is a matter of securing good relations on both sides.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course the Government want to see responsible unions and responsible employers. The Statement that I repeated today in no way goes against that aim. From his long experience, the noble Lord, Lord Greene, talked about the "check-off". However, it is important to realise that the check-off is certainly of assistance to the trade unions; it is the collecting of their dues by the employer which is of assistance to them. All that we are suggesting in the Statement—and it will be put into legislation—is that employees should agree that that is the right way of paying their union dues. They should be given the opportunity to say so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should say at the outset that I believe, quite frankly, that the Statement before the House is a piece of pre-election propaganda and that it is quite unnecessary. First, as regards a member of the public being able to obtain an injunction, will that not in fact exacerbate the problem rather than cure it? I ask that because, usually, the kind of strike we are considering is an unofficial one and injunctions by the public are more likely to prolong rather than shorten the dispute. Secondly, in relation to the lists of members' names which are to be held separately —and, apparently, safely—by an outside organisation, will the candidates in an election have access to such lists so that they can contact the voters in any election?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the important aspect of the noble Lord's first question is the fact that we are talking about an unlawful strike. In that case, the employer, or a union member can take action; but no other member of the public who has been inconvenienced by the strike can do so. What is proposed will put the matter right so that individual members of the public who are very inconvenienced by such a strike can take action.
I am afraid that I do not have the exact information about whether candidates for election can consult the list. It was on security grounds that we felt that members should not be able to see the list containing the names of other members. However, I shall endeavour to find the answer and will write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sorry but I must draw the attention of the House to the Companion to the Standing Orders and the recommendation that discussion after a Statement and the questions put by the Front Bench spokesmen should not extend beyond 20 minutes.

Local Government Finance Bill
5.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 147:
Page 86, leave out line 14 and insert:
("(f) that a notice must contain the amount given by the formula in section 34(2), for each special item in part of a billing authority's area the amount given by the formula in section 34(3), and the amount given by the formula in section 44(1);
(ff) that a notice must contain other prescribed matters;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment before the Committee is a technical one designed to elicit, as it appears we have to, how the Government will interpret in regulations some of the many problems which arise from the Bill. Members of the Committee will recall that the council tax demands will be formulated in such a way that district councils will have to take into account the parish council figures in their demand and they will have to reflect parish council expenditure in their budget. It seems to us that it would be unfair if it were not possible—indeed, required—for district councils to show the parish
1204
council amount separately in the council tax demands which they send out. In that way ratepayers can see, as they can between county council and district council, where the responsibility for expenditure lies and what proportion of the amount demanded can be properly allocated to parish councils as opposed to district councils.
We would be quite satisfied with an assurance from the Government that the regulations under paragraph 2(3)(e) of Schedule 2 will in fact cover that point. If such an assurance were forthcoming, we would not seek to press the amendment. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): We believe that the detail of demand notices is a matter which is appropriately left to regulations, not least because it is the kind of detail about which it is important to consult local authorities. Therefore, I should like to assure the noble Lord that it is our intention that the regulations covering demand notices will require billing authorities to include in their demand notices the council tax for each relevant tier applicable to the chargeable dwelling concerned, including the amount of any parish precept. We are at present consulting the local authority associations on the details.
As a Scottish Minister, I should perhaps also point out that Schedule 2, which includes this provision, applies to Great Britain as a whole. Therefore, the amendment proposed would be wholly inappropriate to Scottish circumstances where the concept of special items, precepting authorities, and so on, do not apply. I hope that that explanation is useful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that assurance. It is entirely what I sought to achieve. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarretmoved Amendment No. 148:
Page 86, line 38, after ("payable") insert ("with interest added at the rate of 2 per cent. over Bank Rate").
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 149 which is consequential upon Amendment No. 148. We have heard a great deal recently about the fact that councils have been receiving less poll tax than they should and are therefore having to charge more to the people who have been honest, good and law-abiding and who have paid up. Those people will have to pay more this year as councils are short of money because of those who have not paid.
The Bill contains many provisions giving powers to bailiffs to enter property. It provides for restraint and so forth, but that is a long-winded process. It may have to happen occasionally. The Inland Revenue and —I believe I am right in saying—many firms charge interest on moneys due. If they are not paid by the due date, interest is charged and accrued thereon. That is a simple procedure and it is fair and right. If that provision were written into the Bill it may remove some of the difficulties that local councils are experiencing as a result of being short of money. At

1205
the same time, people who fail to pay—they must be given a reasonable time in which to pay—will know that they will have to pay interest on moneys due.
I asked my noble friend Lady Blatch about this matter. She was good enough to reply to me. Among other things, she said that she was not sure that an additional deterrent for non-payment, such as adding interest charges, would justify the additional effort involved in collecting such charges. I do not regard it as a deterrent. It does something which is necessary. If one owes money, one will have to pay interest thereon. I have received a sweet letter from a pensioner and I shall read an extract from it. It illustrates what ordinary people feel. The letter states:
"We are pensioners, and it is very annoying"—
that is a good word—
"to have an extra amount added to our bill for the purpose of covering the loss expected from people who will not pay. I did pay my poll tax for the last year, but deducted this extra cost when I paid this year. I very quickly received a bill and a threat of going to court if it was not paid".
That is a sad letter. I hope that my noble friend and the Government will take the point on board and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 on page 109 because the schedule applies to Scotland. Line 20 states:
"The sheriff, on an application by the authority … shall grant a summary warrant … by Act of Sederunt authorising the recovery … of the sum remaining due and unpaid along with a surcharge of 10 per cent. of that amount".
The bottom of page 109 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order substitute another percentage",
for the 10 per cent. stated. It should be for the court to determine the means and, if necessary, the social background of the offender. I am sorry that I am not familiar with English court procedure in this respect, but I have a feeling that similar provisions may be contained within Schedule 4 applying to England and Wales.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: This is an important amendment which, in principle anyway if not in terms of the precise wording, deserves the Committee's support. As a general rule, interest is always charged on overdue tax in this country. The rates were never technically a tax. Realistically, the community charge was, perhaps, 75 per cent. tax and only 25 per cent. a charge for value universally received; nevertheless, technically it was called a charge, whatever the general public may have called it.
However, the proposed local government tax is unashamedly a tax and is formally designated as such. It would therefore be illogical and inconsistent if interest were not to be charged on overdue payments. As we have heard, many people, mainly for political reasons, have refused to pay their poll tax. Those people are not just those who find it difficult to pay. They include many people who can well afford to do so. It may be expected that there will also be a number of people—perhaps not so many—who for doctrinal reasons will refuse to pay the new local government tax. That is unfair, as the noble Viscount pointed out,
1206
to honest people who pay their tax, whether they like it or not, and who have to pay not just for themselves, but have to shoulder the burden imposed by non-payers. For that reason, the amendment deserves serious consideration.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There may be some merits in the proposal although it will prove administratively—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The amendment—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is the turn of this side, if noble Lords do not mind. The Conservatives have had two goes and the Cross Benches one. I think that we are entitled to say a few words.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am giving way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord. The amendment has a certain attraction, there is no question about that. Let me make it clear that I, and I am sure all my colleagues, are not in favour of people evading their proper responsibilities as laid down by Parliament. I resent people who decide which tax they shall pay. One either believes in Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty or one does not. I happen to believe in it, and so I believe that people should pay the taxes which are imposed, and, if they do not like those taxes, at the next election they should throw out the people who imposed them. That is the proper way to exercise British democracy.
I am attracted to the amendment because it tells those people who are reluctant to pay up that if they do not do so they will be penalised. Frankly, I believe that they should be penalised for two reasons. The first reason is the obvious one—that it is a debt which they owe—and, secondly, by delaying payment, or not making payment at all, they are inflicting a higher payment on other people. I very much resent that.
I resent the fact that under the poll tax system I am having to pay an extra £118 a year because some of my fellow poll tax payers in Reading have not paid up. Some measures should be taken to make them pay up or to encourage them to make an early payment. I must say that, rightly or wrongly, under my administration in Reading we gave a 2.5 per cent. discount for early payment. I do not know whether the Government would like to consider that idea. I am sure that it would be acceptable to a number of Members of the Committee but perhaps not so acceptable to local authorities.
The amendment has attractions. The wording may need some alteration, but I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had not realised that noble Lords opposite who were so keen to intervene were no longer so keen. We should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for drawing attention to the differences between enforcement in England and Scotland. I notice that the Scottish provision in Schedule 8 to which he referred deals only with what a sheriff may do in giving a summary warrant. Not far from here—indeed perhaps closer than Scotland—in

1207
France local taxes are sent out with a notice which states the due date of payment and gives advance warning that 10 per cent. will be charged on any bills not paid by the due date. That is probably a good deal more practical than the 2 per cent. above bank rate which is proposed by the noble Viscount.
I fear that the complexity of applying interest at a varying rate for varying periods on relatively small amounts could be very great indeed. The noble Viscount may wish to seek a simpler way of achieving in principle a laudable objective.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the principle of the amendment but I do not believe it is necessary to write it into the Bill. There should be general powers for local authorities to charge interest on amounts unpaid, just as I believe the Inland Revenue should pay interest if a taxpayer has paid and was wrongly charged.
There are certain limits above and below which the charge does not operate for the reason to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred—that it is too expensive to collect. If people properly pay the council tax bill when it arrives and later prove that it was incorrect, it is only right that they should receive interest on their money. The general principle is right, but I do not believe the amendments are necessarily the right way of going about it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The amendment will not do because it will be complicated to operate. I leave aside for the moment the general question as to whether interest should be added to such liabilities. There is obviously a case for it, but to provide that interest should be added at 2 per cent. over bank rate will involve a most complicated operation. After all, the bank rate changes. Your Lordships' House often spends a great deal of time urging that the bank rate should be changed.
If there is a quite small debt to which must be added 2 per cent. over the bank rate at several levels of the bank rate during the period of liability, the organisational problems and the expense will be greater than the gain. My noble friend may wish to consider the suggestion of interest, and I like the concept of the French provision of which we were reminded by the Front Bench opposite. However, I hope that he will not accept this amendment which will involve more work than the money it gains.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may add a tiny detail to support that point. Under Amendment No. 149, if it turns out that someone pays, whether inadvertently or deliberately, a sum in excess of that which is required, they will be rewarded by being refunded the amount with interest of 2 per cent. in excess of the bank rate. That is not necessarily wise if the person deliberately or by his or her own carelessness does so. There are details in the amendment which do not work out.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may address first the point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour. He mentioned interest being charged on debts in Scotland. He is correct that a surcharge will be added
1208
to council tax debts in Scotland on the granting of a summary warrant. That simply continues arrangements which exist under the community charge. The purpose of the surcharge is to meet the costs of recovery and is applied only at the time when the arrears case comes before the sheriff. One cannot make comparisons between this and the arrangements in England where recovery procedures are entirely different.
I hesitate to say that this afternoon we have already debated an amendment which has important implications for the administrative load imposed on local authorities. But I have to say that these amendments would impose an additional administrative burden for what may be only small sums of money.
However, I have and the Government have considerable sympathy with the reasons for the amendments and I understand the concerns which Members of the Committee have expressed. On several counts I am advised that in their present form the amendments are not acceptable. I shall therefore, without commitment, see whether we can bring forward government amendments at Report stage to deal with the question of interest. I should qualify that by saying that it will not be easy to draft regulations covering this complex issue but we will wish to discuss it with the local authority associations. I hope that with that reassurance my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness White: Is the Minister assuming that in Wales we pay no such taxes?
Earl Howe: I apologise to the noble Baroness, but would she repeat her question?
Baroness White: As the Minister did not mention Wales, only England and Scotland, does he assume that in Wales we pay no taxes?
Earl Howe: I shall look into that point between now and Report stage.
Baroness White: Perhaps he could write to me about it.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down—for the second time—as he has been kind enough to say that he will take the matter away and consider it, will he bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is quite right that to base any interest charge on the bank rate would be difficult because of the fluctuating nature of the bank rate? Nevertheless, at present the Inland Revenue levies a charge on unpaid tax of, I believe, 9.25 per cent. This changes rarely, perhaps only once a year. It may be a pattern which the Government should consider.
Earl Howe: I am happy to consider that point. I should stress that I have not given a commitment to bring back an amendment at Report stage, but we shall look very seriously indeed at the issue. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their contributions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the Minister include in his consideration the example I gave of the simple French system? It seems to work; it makes me pay on the day before the due date.
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Hamwee: Again, before the noble Earl sits down, I do not believe that he commented on the point made by a number of Members of the Committee about overpayment. It is particularly material in the case of a tax where there may be overpayment as a result of someone having to claim a discount.
Earl Howe: That is an important aspect of the subject but I feel that it contributes to the severe administrative difficulties that will ensue from the simple system that underlies the amendment. That is why we ought to look more deeply into the practicalities before proposing anything definite.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment gives rise to administrative problems, but it also highlights the fact that the payer, not knowing that the discount was available, may himself or herself suffer after having overpaid.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Earl sits down, would he bear in mind that when I pay the Inland Revenue too much tax, it does not pay me interest?
Earl Howe: There are provisions that oblige the Inland Revenue to pay interest once an overpayment has been outstanding for a certain time. But it does not start immediately the overpayment is made. The noble Lady will, however, find that the provisions are there.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am sure that the Committee would like to make progress but I should say that I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, if I understood him correctly, for saying that the general point underlined by the two amendments will be considered by him and the Government to see whether they can come up with something which embraces the principle.
I put down the amendment relating to 2 per cent. above the bank rate only because it is a simple guideline. As my noble friend Lord Balfour said, it could be 10 per cent. or whatever one wishes. I do not mind. All I sought to do was to remove the penalties that are being inflicted on the people who pay their poll tax and who will subsequently pay the council tax. They may find that they have to pay more because of the people who are naughty and do not pay up when they should. That is all I seek and I believe that the point has gone home.
The suggestion of my noble friend on whether payers should receive a refund is embodied in the principle of Amendment No. 149. Clearly they pay their tax and, if on appeal they find they have paid too much, they will be reimbursed with the appropriate amount of interest. I am grateful to my noble friend
1210
for his reply. I look forward to hearing what the Government will produce on Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 150:
Page 87, line 14, at end insert:
("(2A) No regulations under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 150 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 151 which represents an alternative version just in case we find ourselves in breach of privilege by the use of the words "each House of Parliament". I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 225 which relates to Clause 112. That clause summarises orders and regulations concerning affirmative resolutions.
Amendment No. 150 may seem a technical amendment in that it seeks to make the provisions of subparagraph (2) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Bill subject to affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament. However, subparagraph (2) is extremely important and raises one of the biggest issues, both of principle and of practice, in the Government's proposals for the council tax. I feel it is necessary to read out subparagraph (2) in full. It states:
"Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that, before making any calculation of the chargeable amount for the purposes of regulations under this Schedule, the authority shall take reasonable steps to ascertain whether that amount is subject to any discount, and if so, the amount of that discount".
Ministers have claimed from the first day the council tax was proposed that it could be introduced —and that the discount structure in particular could be introduced—without the need for any form of register. They persist in that claim even though local authority associations, many of the professional bodies concerned with rating and valuation and anyone who has experience of the operation of discount structures of this kind would say that it is simply not enough in the first place to require those who seek discounts to claim them and then, secondly, to leave it to regulations to determine what authorities should do to ascertain whether the amount is subject to any discount. It is not good enough simply to say that an authority shall take reasonable steps in this matter. It is not good enough to leave that matter to regulations and not to Parliament as regards deciding what the reasonable steps should be.
It is difficult enough to get the information requirements clear for the initial billing itself. Unless the bill is to be addressed simply to the council tax payer, surely it should preferably be addressed to a named individual. How will a local authority know who the named individual is? By 1993 the former rating records will be three years out of date in England and Wales and four years out of date in Scotland. The community charge register is all very well—it is supposed to be a complete register but, as

1211
we know, it almost certainly is not—but it gives no indication of where the person named in that register fits into the hierarchy of liability. We have already debated that matter. Can housing records be used in this regard? Clearly those will be incomplete. Can any survey work that is carried out by the billing authority be used in this respect? If that is the case, is it to be a statutory survey or a non-statutory survey? Is it to be a survey backed by other legislation, such as Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976? All of those questions have yet to be resolved. I do not believe that the Government have adequate proposals to deal with them.
As regards discounts, the information requirements pose an even greater difficulty. It is not just a matter of checking on whether a claim for a discount is justified and whether anybody else is living at the property in question. The matter is complicated by the elaborate provisions that exist for securing that other people living at a property may or may not be invisible in terms of this Bill. Local authorities might be tempted, if they were being cynical, to say, "If discounts are not claimed, we shall not bother to do anything about it as it is to our advantage not to award discounts". Nevertheless those local authorities will not wish to send out claims which do not take into account the possibility of discounts because, if discounts are claimed only when there is a default on payment, the cost of settling the matter after the initial bill has been sent out—I refer to the cost of sending out a new bill among other such matters—will be much greater than if a proper list had existed in the first place.
It is right that there should be a provision for local authorities to compile a register on the basis of which they can send out accurate bills to named individuals. It is only the Government's ideological commitment to pretending they are moving away from the poll tax and the poll tax register that prevents them giving this matter adequate consideration. The Government's blinkered approach has resulted in their relegating this vital issue—how local authorities are to ascertain whether an amount is subject to a discount—to a totally inadequate provision; namely, regulations may provide that an,
"authority shall take reasonable steps".
Parliament should not be treated in that way as regards this important matter. If the Government have anything sensible to say about the information which local authorities must have and the registers they will have to keep, they should say it to Parliament. They should not dodge the issue until after the legislation has been passed. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 propose the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations under subparagraph (2) of paragraph 4 to Schedule 2. These regulations will require billing and levying authorities, before calculating the council tax payable for any dwelling, to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether that amount is subject to any discount and, if so, how much.
The regulations will allow local authorities to find out about discount entitlement. Local authorities will
1212
be under a duty to take any reasonable steps to establish the discount entitlement of households in their area. The noble Lord asked what was meant by the term "reasonable steps". I should inform him that authorities will already have a great deal of information on single-person households—for example, students—from their existing records. In most cases they will already know where discounts are applicable. Many authorities may nevertheless want to give all households a chance to claim discounts before 1st April 1993. But there will be no obligation to respond to any such requests. Where a person entitled to a discount received a full bill, he would of course be able to write back claiming a discount.
As the noble Lord explained, Amendment No. 150 provides that the regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. Amendment No. 151 provides that any regulations made under subparagraph (2) should be subject to the affirmative resolution in another place only. I believe the noble Lord places undue emphasis on that point. The affirmative resolution procedure is normally used only for the more important constitutional and financial matters. It is appropriate that, for example, an order under Clause 11 to change the appropriate percentage for discount purposes should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But, in our view, it is not necessary for regulations requiring authorities to take steps to establish discount eligibility to be subject to affirmative resolution. The negative resolution procedure is appropriate for such regulations.
Amendment No. 225 is consequential, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained. It adds to the list in Clause 112 a reference appropriate to the affirmative resolution procedure proposed in the earlier amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked how a local authority will know the name of a liable person. I told the Committee last week that we are currently discussing the information needs of local authorities with the local authority associations. As I said then, we shall consider whether any specific powers are necessary in the light of those discussions, which will be concluded shortly.
Local authorities have not been pressing for further specific powers in relation to discounts and we believe that the Bill as drafted provides all that is needed. I hope that in the light of that response the noble Lord will feel easier about the matter as a whole and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a profoundly unsatisfactory answer both in terms of the way in which the legislation will be implemented and the principle behind it. The noble Earl said that the affirmative resolution procedure should be used only for matters of constitutional and financial importance. I assume that he included such matters of profound constitutional and financial importance as the paralytic shellfish orders which seem to appear on your Lordships' Order Paper with monotonous regularity. It does not come well from the noble Earl, as a member of a government who rely on regulation at the expense of primary legislation to the extent that

1213
this Government do, to suggest that there should be such restrictions on the use of the affirmative resolution procedure.
The noble Earl said that local authorities already have information relating to the names of occupiers of properties. He cited the example of students in particular, about whom other information is known. He will readily admit that such information is bound to be incomplete. He must be aware of the talks that are taking place between the local authority associations and the Department of the Environment on that subject in which the associations have pointed out the difficulty of being forced to send bills to the occupier when there are outstanding issues such as who is responsible for the hierarchy of liability for council tax and when there is a possibility of discounts arising.
I do not believe that the noble Earl has taken seriously enough the point that I made about the cost involved if a discount is not provided for in the initial bill but is discovered only when the bill is not paid or when a subsequent claim for a discount is made. It is not merely a matter of the cost of sending out another bill and correcting the initial one, although that is serious enough. The important point which the noble Earl has not taken into account is that the level of discounts to be claimed is an important element in the resources part of the local authority's claim for revenue support grant and has to be known in advance, certainly in the first year, if that claim in respect of the resources element of revenue support grant is to be accurate and meaningful. There has been no answer to that point.
Most important of all, the noble Earl did not give any practical examples of what is meant by reasonable steps. I should have thought that the discussions on that important matter between local authority associations and the Government had gone far enough for the noble Earl to give the Committee exemplifications—which I believe is the technical term —of what is meant by reasonable steps. I invite him to share with the Committee a little more of the thinking of the Government on this important matter.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps before my noble friend replies the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will clear up one point which puzzles me about the two amendments. Amendment No. 150 provides that the approval of both Houses is required to the draft regulations. Amendment No. 151, which is in very similar terms to Amendment No. 150, provides only for approval by another place. Will the noble Lord explain why he has made that curious distinction?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I referred to the matter in introducing the amendments. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. Anything I say is said with due deference as one who has not been a Member of the other place, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The second amendment has been put down in case anybody should claim in another place that we were exceeding our prerogative under the Parliament
1214
Acts by insisting that an affirmative resolution of this kind should come before this Chamber. I may be wrong but we would rather be safe than sorry.
Earl Howe: As I said earlier, our discussions with the local authority associations are proceeding and will be concluded shortly. The noble Lord asked whether I could give exemplifications of what is meant by reasonable steps. In my initial answer I said that the information and database which local authorities already have at their disposal will provide the main source of reference in this context. That is as far as I can go at the moment. I hope that, despite the shortcomings which the noble Lord sees in this area, he will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl will not be surprised if I repeat my view that the answers are entirely unsatisfactory. It is not good enough for the noble Earl to respond in terms of what he calls the database which a local authority holds. A local authority does not hold a database about individuals; it holds information from a number of different sources. That information includes the electoral register, information from old rating records, information from the community charge register, information from housing records and so on. None of that amounts to a database which forms an adequate basis for determining in advance—because it has to be in advance—with the help of those who wish to claim discounts, whether a discount is required.
I am even more convinced that by putting this matter into regulations and making the regulations unclear the Government are avoiding admitting in public that this legislation will require what is in effect a council tax register. That register will be subject to all the same difficulties as any register of individuals in respect of the poll tax register.
Does the noble Earl not recall and do the Government not recall, because the community charge is still with us, the extent to which community charge registers are inadequate because of the extent to which people move around, particularly in cities and notably in inner cities? I understand that Croydon sent out 240,000 original community charge bills and that 240,000 amendments were made because people moved house. That happened in Croydon, which is a relatively stable area of Greater London. The matter will result in a register which will be subject to all the same disadvantages as the poll tax register. We are not debating the matter properly in Parliament only because the Government have not faced the issue, have not examined the problems and are not willing to share their views with Parliament and with this Committee.
I know that the amendment itself is not adequate to deal with the problem. Corrective action must be taken by the Government and cannot be taken by us. Nevertheless I feel that I should seek the view of the Committee on the matter.

1215
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 150) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hooson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Meston, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Cross, V.

Acton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Denham, L.

Aldington, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Derwent, L.

Alport, L.

Donegall, M.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Astor, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Effingham, E.

Balfour, E.

Elibank, L.

Beloff, L.

Elles, B.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Birdwood, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Borthwick, L.

Erne, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Forester, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Burton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Goold, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gridley, L.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Cavendish of Furness, L.

L.

Clinton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Harlech, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hemphill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cowley, E.

Henley, L.

1216

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Holderness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hooper, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Howe, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Quinton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ironside, L.

Reay, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Rees, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rennell, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Renwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ripon, Bp.

Knollys, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Selsdon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Shannon, E.

Layton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stockton, E.

Long, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Marlesford, L.

[Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Terrington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Nelson, E.

Vivian, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Waddington, L.

Orkney, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Westbury, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wharton, B.

Palmer, L.

Wise, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 152:
Page 87, line 24, at end insert:
("(c) where the chargeable amount is subject to a discount, the authority shall not require information from the liable person if other persons who fall to be disregarded under Schedule 1 become resident in the dwelling.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment seeking further clarification on the issues raised when we discussed the matter of annual as opposed to daily liability. As the Committee will recall, daily liability requires a taxpayer in receipt of a discount to notify the authority every time that another adult moves in or out of the property. As was then argued, following the evidence from the Audit Commission, it is clear that we are dealing with very large numbers of movements—60 per cent. and up to 80 per cent. in some university cities.
This amendment has been tabled in order to relieve the liable person of the responsibility to notify the local authority if the person moving into the household was invisible—in other words, if the person was notifying of someone who then turned out not to affect the position as regards the discount; for example, a student, a nurse or a trainee. I do not say that they had not been noticed but merely that in

1217
terms of the wording of the Bill they were invisible. That would clearly reduce the number of notifications that would have to be processed by the local authority.
In another place on 27th November, Mr. Portillo accepted that as a sensible and helpful way forward. That was fine. But we have tabled this amendment because other problems are thrown up. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of them that follow as a result of this measure. It is presumed that the liable person knows whether another person moving in or out of the house is invisible and therefore he or she need not notify the local authority of that. But for that to be true the liable householder has to have a clear view of who is invisible and whether the property is the second person's sole or main residence so that he or she can remain eligible for a single person discount.
Perhaps I may give two very simple examples. The husband works abroad and there he has purchased a flat. He returns to his wife every three months or so for three or four weeks. At that point does she have to notify the local authority that he is back? Is he invisible for these purposes or, more to the point, does that house then become his sole or main residence while he is at home? Let us also consider the son of a lone parent who is taking a year off before going to university. He goes to work as a community service volunteer at, say, a Steiner home in the West Country and comes home for the month of Easter. Is he resident at home with his parent for that month? Does he count? Is he invisible? It is on questions and anomalies of that kind that we hope for clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I recognise, as the noble Baroness said, that this is a probing amendment. I appreciate that her concern is to ensure that people are not placed under a duty to inform local authorities about changes in the household which in practice would not have any effect on the discount entitlement of the household. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness on that point. The only duty that is placed on people in relation to discounts is to allow the person to inform the local authority if there has been a change in the household which may reduce the discount entitlement or remove it. That duty is set out in Schedule 2 paragraph 4, subparagraph (5). There is no duty to inform the authority if there may be an increase in discount entitlement. In that circumstance it is clearly in the interest of the liable person to inform the authority, but he does not have to do so. If he does not do so, he will not receive his extra discount.
The noble Baroness used examples and by way of clarification perhaps I may use an example. A student nurse moves in with a single person who has already received a 25 per cent. discount. In that case there would be no change in discount entitlement because the student nurse would not add to the bill. There would be no requirement to tell the local authority of the change. If the student nurse moved out again, the same point would still apply, but if the student nurse ceased to be a student nurse while living in the
1218
dwelling, then there would be a change in discount entitlement and the local authority would have to be kept informed. That is clear.
I believe that that arrangement is straightforward and sensible. The powers and duties set out in Schedule 2, paragraph 4 are sufficient to enable the local authority to operate the discount arrangements effectively but do not require unnecessary intrusion on individuals. I know that the noble Baroness produced her examples. I believe that the same principle applies to them as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. There is no difference between us in our understanding of the Bill in the examples that he gave. Clearly, if someone is carrying invisibility with them it makes no difference to the single person status of the liable householder. However, there is a second related issue, and I refer to the two examples that I gave. A household becomes a two-person household, and therefore the liable person would lose the single person discount, if the second person moving in would not have been invisible but nonetheless it is not his or her sole or main residence. In my example I was addressing that issue, and the noble Lord did not respond to that.
I gave the example of the husband who largely works abroad. I was avoiding the example of the seaman which was given in the other place. The husband who works abroad has a flat there, but he comes home for quite sustained periods of time, which may be four to six weeks. At that point does it become a two-person household, whereupon the wife has to report the change in eligibility? The second example I gave was that of a youngster who might be working in a Steiner home but who returns home.
Another example given in the other place was that of a mentally handicapped youngster who might live in a therapeutic community but who comes home to stay with his parent for six weeks at a time. Where then is his sole or main residence? By coming home to his parent, does he cost that single parent the single person discount? We are seeking some comment from the Minister as to what counts as the sole or main residence.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not want to make the Bill any more complicated. The noble Baroness has produced some very good examples which raise complications. In most cases the position will be absolutely clear as to where the sole or main residence is. Is the person just visiting or is he genuinely resident for a certain amount of time? If there is doubt, then the liable person who is seeking the discount or believes that he or she may be breaking the law by not telling the local authority about an addition to the household should advise the local authority of the circumstances. It will be for the local authority to determine what should be the appropriate decision in all the circumstances. One cannot legislate for every seaman or married couple where the husband may work abroad for part of the time. That is not practical. One has to have some kind of flexibility within the system that allows for the local authority to make a decision in the light of the circumstances as they stand.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was not a very helpful response. I realise the difficulty under which the Minister may be labouring. Clearly, if a person has a second residence elsewhere and that person stays with another, the question does not arise, and if that person is invisible by status then the same question does not arise. But I was trying to suggest a situation where a husband may have a property abroad or a youngster may be acting as a community service volunteer. In those circumstances they do not have an alternative residence in England but when they return they are here for a limited period. To that degree would the discount be affected? Quite a substantial minority of people are in that category. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is for the local authority to decide. In that situation the matter would be sent to the courts for adjudication. The Minister must give some advice to the local authority as to what will count as the residence, and therefore whether the liability will arise.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course we shall give advice to local authorities, not just on this case but on a whole range of cases. We have made that quite clear throughout the Committee stage. The noble Baroness has made a good point, but she is labouring it slightly. In different circumstances different situations will apply. It depends how often someone comes to stay and how long they stay for. I know that the noble Baroness sees that. That is why it is appropriate for the local authority to deal with this matter on an individual basis. I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to be as clear as I possibly can. If there is no obvious case for the person having a sole or main residence in the place where they are staying, then the local authority will have to make a decision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I have said, this is a probing amendment and I shall be withdrawing it. The Minister needs to give us further guidance if we are not to return to this matter at Report stage. There is clearly an anomaly here of some substance. We have had little help from the Minister by way of clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Penalties]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 159:
Page 94, line 25, at end insert:
("(c) in purported compliance with the provision he knowingly supplies information which is inaccurate in a material particular").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 162 and 163. If nothing else they have the merit of moving the Committee five amendments down the list. Amendments Nos. 159 and 161 are probing, although they are drafted to add a further offence relating to the inaccurate notification of
1220
information to billing authorities and levying authorities. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee that
"notify … in accordance with the provision"
in sub-paragraph (b) covers the supplying of inaccurate information as well as the failure to give any information.
The other amendments increase the penalty from £50 to £200. They are tabled in order to give Members of the Committee an opportunity to consider whether in 1993 £50 will appropriately reflect the offence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I shall not speak on Amendments Nos. 159 and 160. However, Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 163 apply to Scotland which I consider is adequately covered in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3.
I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to note that at the bottom of page 94 appears the provision that, in the case of Scotland, any failure will result in a further penalty of £200. It is only in Scotland where the person requested to give information has failed to do so that the penalty increases from £50 to £200. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendments Nos. 161 to 163. Furthermore, paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 161 which the noble Baroness proposes to insert in the Bill already appears at line 40 of page 94.
Lord Strathclyde: Again my noble friend Lord Balfour has been most helpful in providing greater clarification of the Bill. In introducing the amendments the noble Baroness explained that they are concerned with penalties. She also explained that the Bill provides for penalties to be imposed by the billing authorities for certain failures to notify them of changes or to provide certain information on request. There is a duty to notify the billing authority when a dwelling ceases to be exempt and also when a discount entitlement either disappears or is reduced. The Bill does not provide that these failures are criminal offences but allows the authority to impose a civil penalty of £50, which can be added to the council tax bill.
Amendment No. 159 and its Scottish equivalent, Amendment No. 161, would provide for penalties in cases where the person had not simply failed to notify the authority but had deliberately provided inaccurate information. No doubt the noble Baroness wishes to ascertain why there is not within paragraphs 1 and 2 (1) of Schedule 3 the same kind of provisions dealing with the supply of inaccurate information that are to be found within sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 2. The simple reason is that paragraphs 1 and 2(1) do not impose obligations to provide detailed information as is the case under paragraphs 2(2) and (3). The obligation on the person is to notify loss of exempt dwelling status or loss of reduction of discount entitlement. Either the person has notified the change or he has not, in which case the £50 penalty is applicable.
Amendments Nos. 160, 162 and 163 would increase the civil penalty from £50 to £200. The figure of £50 reflects the level of penalties currently applicable for

1221
various failures to comply with a statutory duty under the community charge. I believe that it provides a sufficient disincentive to people who may feel tempted to keep quiet about a change of circumstance, particular since when imposed it will be accompanied by a revised bill for the new liability, including back tax at the appropriate rate for the period following the change.
I hope that my explanation is clear and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, will he say whether there is provision in the Bill to amend these penalties at some time in the future should that be necessary?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that there is. Perhaps I can write to my noble friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: How are these penalties to be enforced? Perhaps I have missed something in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that it should be possible to upgrade the penalties as the years go by. We saw how the dog licence became totally out of date and that could apply to this penalty if the law continues.
Lord Strathclyde: I have received some inspiration that there is no power in the Bill to amend the overall level of tines. However, that is true of many Acts on the statute book. They can be revised generally through various powers and that is probably the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem. In those circumstances we shall avoid the difficulty mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It appears that my suspicions were correct. Although a local authority may levy the penalty of £50 for non-information it can do nothing if the person who fails to give the information decides not to pay the £50. Is that right?
Lord Strathclyde: No. Once the £50 penalty is added there is a revised bill. The total bill becomes the new charge which the person must pay and then the matter will go through the normal enforcement procedures.
Lord Swinfen: Will my noble friend consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage allowing the penalties to be altered by an affirmative instrument?
Lord Strathclyde: That is a fair proposal and perhaps it is one that I can take away and look at.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank Members of the Committee who took part in the debate. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, became apparent to me as I sat down having moved the amendment. Many Members of the Committee will wish to have more detail about the various powers referred to. However, I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, because he was bowled a difficult problem. The penalty of £50 is hardly more than that
1222
imposed for various parking infringements and it would be regarded by some people as a penalty which they could incur without particular concern.
Lord Elton: The amount of the fine is important. It is not the right solution merely to increase the fine, because if inflation returns on the scale that it once was the fine will become too small. What is needed is not a statutory instrument which the Secretary of State can alter whether by parliamentary procedure or not, but the well-tried system whereby it is a point on an established scale as used in fines imposed by magistrates. That is indexed and will change.
Lord Swinfen: Yes, if that is not a penalty that must be imposed by a court rather than by a local authority.
Lord Elton: I was suggesting that the system used by the courts in respect of fines could easily be inserted into the schedule of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I recognise that there are two basic anxieties: first, as regards whether the overall level of the fine should be £50 or more; secondly, how the fine will be increased. I shall consider carefully those two areas to see whether or not any adjustments can be made.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble Lord for that. I shall look forward to hearing his conclusions. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 163 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enforcement: England and Wales]:
Lord Henderson of Bromptonmoved Amendment No. 164:
Page 96, line 7, at beginning insert:
("( ) No enforcement order shall be made to recover any sum under this Act unless the court is satisfied that the authority has correctly determined whether there is an outstanding claim for council tax benefit in respect of that sum.").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment which has the support of the citizens advice bureaux. I consider it to be just as important as the amendment which they supported dealing with weekly or fortnightly payments. It mostly concerns people on low or very low incomes.
It is a simple proposition that:
"No enforcement order shall be made to recover any sum under this Act unless the court is satisfied that the authority has correctly determined whether there is an outstanding claim for council tax benefit in respect of that sum".
The citizens advice bureaux wish, as I am sure we all do, to uphold the Citizen's Charter which is being so forcefully advocated by the Prime Minister. The charter states:
"Every citizen is entitled to expect: Explicit standards, published and prominently displayed at the point of delivery. These standards should … include … accuracy in accordance with statutory entitlements, and a commitment to prompt action".
For good or ill, council tax benefit plays an extremely important part in the council tax system. It is designed to ensure that people on low incomes are not called upon to pay a disproportionate contribution to local taxation. I support the notion underlying

1223
the provision of that benefit. However, there is no provision for people who are in difficulty with payments. When they are in difficulty with payments, that can lead to an accumulation of arrears. The citizens advice bureaux' evidence, which I shall not cite because it would take too long, is that a large number of people have found themselves to be in that situation as regards the community charge.
Despite the publicity given to the council tax benefit scheme, many people were unaware of how they could claim or even that they could claim. Others claimed but waited months for the claims to be processed. That is solid evidence and is despite the fact that, under the regulations, local authorities should pay any benefit within 14 days of a claim being made or as soon as possible after that. Even if estimated payments were made in the interim, that could result in a considerable accumulation of arrears.
The most disturbing problems created in that regard, which are caused by delays by the council in processing claims, are those where enforcement action was taken by a local authority while clients were still waiting for another department in the same local authority to process a benefit claim.
On the early amendments we were told about the poor old computer, which could not cope with weekly or fortnightly payments. It now looks as though nobody has thought of the solution to this very real problem. Surely it is possible to put the amount of the benefits and the payments to be made into the computer. One can then do an extremely simple sum in order to find out what is the net payment. I believe that that should be within the capacity of a quite antiquated computer, let alone a modern one. I hope that that will be done. It would make a huge difference to those people on low pay. Indeed, it would make a huge difference to all of us who are in receipt of benefits but who, at the same time, have to pay local council tax. It would then be possible to know what is the net credit or debit. That should be within the capacity of modern technology.
When this matter was raised in another place, Mr. Robert Key, with whom I had extremely fruitful conversations only yesterday afternoon, said:
"I know that there are problems—there is no denying it. However, it is usual for a local authority to behave reasonably when a person's particular circumstances arc explained".
I am trying to persuade Mr. Robert Key and the Government that it should not be left to a local authority to decide whether it should be "usual"; it should be common practice.
Unfortunately the evidence from the citizens advice bureaux is that it is far from being common practice. That is why I raise this matter today. It is not good enough to let the bad, less efficient local authorities behave in such a way that a person is billed by one department when he is due to be paid a sum by another department. That should not be allowed to happen. It is a scandalous situation which drives people at or near the bottom of the heap into accumulating mounting debts.
I should like to give the Committee one shocking illustration of this. A CAB in East Anglia reports that its local authority simply tells clients not to turn up to
1224
court—when proceedings have reached that stage—to face a court summons when a benefit claim has yet to be determined because the authority will not act on the liability order. That cannot be contemplated in the legislation. The Government cannot wish to see that state of affairs persist. This amendment is designed to address that situation.
We are asking that best practice, in line with the Citizen's Charter, is incorporated in legislation. It is unacceptable for people to have to be subjected to the acute anxiety aroused by a court order when it is not necessary. It could be obviated by a more efficient council getting together two arms of its service and matching them in a computer. The authority which is approaching the citizen who must pay his community tax will then know whether the net sum is either a debit or credit to the council. A person finding it difficult to pay his community charge should not be faced with court proceedings, bailiffs and all the horrors that follow from that when he has an amount owing to him from the council. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I support the amendment. The key points are, first, that we have a situation where people are being penalised for a defect which is not under their control. One often cannot make local authority machinery move within a limited space of time.
My second point is that this is a mischief which is a great deal more common than some of us realise. We normally only hear of the cases that are reported, which affect those who seek advice. There are a great many who do not seek advice; who do not know where to go to obtain it. It so happens that I came across precisely that problem two weeks ago. Someone who was eligible for community charge benefit and had not received it was faced with a poll tax bill. It happened to a personal friend of my son. She had no idea where to turn for advice. Fortunately, her father took the matter in hand and a settlement was reached the day before the court hearing. But a considerable amount of time and public money had been wasted before that came about. There could be a more efficient system of dealing with the problem.
We do not always allow for quite how overstretched many local authority administrations are, especially in areas in inner London where there is a high mobility of population. Some of them—and I must mention my own local authority of Brent, which I regret to say is exactly the same under different political control as it was before—are almost impossible to get through to. I had dealings with Brent poll tax department in regard to receiving mistaken information. It is impossible to obtain a response except by going through a councillor. That is an inefficient way of proceeding.
It would be much better to clarify an arrangement whereby people do not receive summonses until they receive their community charge benefit and are in a position to pay. We must think about the court's time as well as everything else. I hope that the Government

1225
will look sympathetically on the amendment. It will make the wheels turn more smoothly than they do without it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, made an impressive case for the amendment. There may be an answer and I shall wait with interest to hear from my noble friend whether there is. However, on the face of it the noble Lord has a valid point and unless my noble friend intends to accept the amendment, I hope that he has a convincing answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on this side also support the amendment. It is sensible and humane not to pursue an enforcement order while the taxpayer waits apprehensively for the outstanding benefit to which that person is entitled. Indeed, a person may be entitled to 100 per cent. rebate and yet end up faced with a nil bill but a claim for costs, thus adding insult to tension, stress and distress.
To follow the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and as the Audit Commission indicated in November 1990, local authorities have been overwhelmed by the volume of applications for benefit. No one on these Benches would defend local authorities poorly administered and insensitive to benefit claims and the like. However, it is only fair to recognise the pressure under which local authorities are working.
Across local authorities, up to half of all poll tax payers applied for benefit; around 30 per cent. ultimately received it. As the Audit Commission said, the problems of volume are exacerbated by the time consuming nature of assessment, cross references to register and the like. Members of the Committee will probably be aware that it takes six to nine months to train up a member of staff who is then in a sensitive and difficult job, and there are severe shortages of trained staff.
That is when local authorities are dealing only with rebates. We are about to move to a council tax with the mapping of households and the interplay between discounts and rebates in which the calculations that the local authority benefit staff will have to make will be infinitely more complex and in which the likelihood of delays will be exacerbated. It is not a reason for not accepting the amendment. We on this side support it. But we should not ignore the problems and believe that it is simply a question of staff shortages. Local authorities are to be faced with an extremely complex structure while, under capping procedures, they do not have the resources to increase the staff to deal with it. We support the amendment.
Lord Wise: I too support the amendment. I can add little to what has been said in the arguments in favour of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pointed out, it is surely unacceptable that people should face the anxiety and cost of a court summons and enforcement action where their liability, net of benefit entitlement, has yet to be determined.
As the noble Lord said also, the evidence from the citizens advice bureaux shows that a considerable number of distressing cases of that nature have arisen in relation to the community charge. The amendment
1226
seeks to ensure that similar situations do not arise with the council tax. It will ensure that any outstanding claim for benefit is processed before an application for summons is made. I hope that my noble friend will look favourably upon it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Amendment No. 164 seeks to prevent a liability order being issued unless any claim for council tax benefit has been dealt with or, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the court is satisfied that the authority has correctly determined whether there is an outstanding claim for council tax benefit.
It has never been the case that a claim for benefit suspended the liability of a ratepayer or a chargepayer from paying any sum lawfully demanded of them. That was upheld in a recent Court of Appeal judgment last year—Regina v. Bristol City Council, ex parte Willsman and Young—where the court held that it was not unreasonable for the authority to press ahead with obtaining a liability order once a summons had been issued even if it was alleged at court that there was a benefit claim outstanding. In that case the authority concerned had undertaken not to enforce the order until the claim, if any truly existed, was determined.
Although I can appreciate and sympathise with the reason why the amendment was tabled, I can see no reason for changing that position for the council tax. If such a change was made, I am afraid it would leave the way open for taxpayers to avoid or delay their liability to pay the council tax by making bogus claims for benefit and causing those claims to be delayed by failing to provide the correct information. Most authorities will continue to act reasonably if approached by someone with an outstanding benefit claim and would not continue their recovery process until the claim was settled. That is the advice which has been given in a practice note issued by the Department of the Environment to all authorities on enforcement of the community charge and will be reiterated in guidance on enforcement of the council tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, welcomed the council tax benefit and the provisions for it. I welcome that support. However, he said that there was no provision for dealing with arrears of council tax. Council tax benefit is not designed to pick up the arrears that may have built up when the person liable did not have an entitlement to council tax benefit. That cannot be the purpose of council tax benefit. However, if arrears have built up while there has been an entitlement to council tax benefit, it will be open to a claimant to put in a claim for council tax benefit going back over the previous 52 weeks—in other words, from the date of claim back 52 weeks—provided good cause can be shown, as is the case with all other social security benefits where claims can be backdated 52 weeks.
It is then up to the local authority, as was said by various Members of the Committee, to deal with the claim. Local authorities have a full statutory responsibility for dealing with claims for housing benefit and community charge benefit and will have

1227
such responsibility for council tax benefit. Regulations prescribe that claims must be processed within 14 days or as soon as possible thereafter.
I understand there have been complaints that some councils have been somewhat slow in dealing with claims. I cannot give precise figures as to how well they are all dealing with them. This is not a matter for my department; these matters are dealt with by local authorities. The latest available information suggests that most claims are processed within the target time. Certainly, I would hope that as long as they are dealt with within that target time the problems should not arise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, complained that the local authorities were overwhelmed by the amount of work they had to deal with in processing housing benefit and community charge benefit and therefore there were extensive delays which were much greater than 14 days. I accept that on many occasions councils have not been able to meet that 14-day target. But one must stress that with council tax benefit, first, there will be fewer people paying the tax and therefore presumably fewer people to deal with in terms of processing the claims; secondly, despite what the noble Baroness has said, the procedure is far simpler in council tax than it was in community charge benefit; and, thirdly, it is far simpler than anything that is likely to emerge from the party opposite.
It is always open to the local taxpayers to appeal to the local authority ombudsman if they consider their case has been dealt with in an unsatisfactory way. District auditors themselves can make a report to the council if they consider any aspect of an authority's administration, such as the procedure for housing benefit or council tax benefit, is being dealt with inefficiently. I go back to the advice that will be given by the Department of the Environment that will follow the advice given on council tax benefit—that the authorities should act reasonably and should not press ahead with the recovery process until the claim is settled.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I cannot help expressing some disappointment with that answer. My noble kinsman seems determined to resist the line of argument of the amendment, even to the uttermost folly. There is perhaps a tendency in government quarters—I can understand why but it is not necessarily useful—to see the smell of evasion behind every attempt to tidy up matters. There was no such intention behind the amendment.
Lord Henley: If my noble kinsman will give way, I was not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was trying to evade council tax, or even that my noble kinsman or any noble Lords opposite would ever wish to evade any tax whencesoever it came. I was suggesting that it might be that other claimants—not those pressing the amendment—might wish to evade payment of tax such as council tax.
Earl Russell: I thank my noble kinsman for that clarification which makes precisely the point I was intending to bring out. There is now common ground between us. My noble kinsman was suggesting that the amendment could have this intention, and I am glad to say he accepts that such was not the intention of any noble Lord who put down the amendment.
Our intention was that it lead to the more efficient collection of the money, which I think would be in the Government's, the local authorities' and the public's interest. It is not useful to try to collect money from people who do not have it.
I am very glad to hear the Government say that the local authority may be relied upon to act reasonably. We do not hear that very often, and I am glad to hear it, but unfortunately my noble kinsman has chosen to say it in the wrong place. I do not know where he gets his evidence from, but the evidence suggesting that claims are regularly processed as fast as he says does not seem to have much in common with the evidence available to the rest of us. It is a great deal more difficult for a local authority in an area of high population mobility to keep track of everybody going in and out of benefit—maybe being on benefit for six weeks and then getting a job and going off it—than he suggests. There is far more movement both in and out of benefit and in and out of addresses than has ever been conceived in the discussion of this subject.
My noble kinsman gave one crumb of comfort. He mentioned possible reference to this subject in guidance. If he was able to elaborate on that a little further I might find it rather helpful.
Lord Henley: I made it quite clear that most authorities can process housing benefit and community charge benefit applications within the 14 days specified in the regulations. If the noble Earl wants more precise figures, the latest information dating back to 1989–90 indicates that around two-thirds, 65 per cent., of claims meet that statutory 14-day target. He asked me to go further on the advice that was being given by the Department of the Environment. All I can say is that a practice note was issued by the Department of the Environment on the enforcement of the community charge and that that guidance stressing that the same policy should be adopted will be followed in the council tax. I should have thought that would be sufficient for my noble kinsman.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has just given a very interesting figure about the claims, in which I think he aggregates housing benefit and community charge. Would he be good enough to break the figures down and give them separately for the community charge? Throughout the discussion —for perfectly honourable reasons I am sure—the Minister has referred to housing benefit, which has not been mentioned by any of us on this side. Given that people's housing circumstances change very little in terms of eligibility for benefit compared with the poll tax, I suspect that disaggregating those figures would reveal a very different pattern.
Lord Henley: I cannot disaggregate the figures. The reason why I gave them together is that they are dealt with by the same department, by the local authority, unlike all other benefits, which are dealt with by the Department of Social Security. The noble Baroness said that for some reason people do not seem to move around for housing benefit, which I do not understand, but they do seem to move around for council tax benefit. We are now talking about council tax benefit. This was what I was trying to stress—that it will be much simpler to deal with council tax than with community charge benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The point I am trying to make is that, although we are dealing with a rebate scheme which is fairly simple—housing benefit is a rebate scheme—on to that the Benches opposite have layered a discount scheme. That is what will produce the complexity. The Minister may shake his head, but it is true.
Lord Henley: The discount scheme does not add to the complexity of what the noble Baroness likes to call the rebate scheme, which is in fact council tax benefit. That will be easier because there will be fewer people with whom to deal. Therefore, the existing claims departments dealing with housing benefit and community charge benefit, which will be dealing with housing benefit and council tax benefit, will have a much easier time in the future.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: We shall see, shall we not? I regret that the Minister introduced a party political note into what had hitherto been a discussion into which party politics had not entered. But that is merely an expression of opinion.
I would have hoped that the Minister would have listened carefully to the opinions which came from all sides of the House, and in particular to an opinion which I value very much—that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said he thought that a good case—in fact he said an impressive case—had been made out. I do not know whether he thought the answer was impressive. That was not the impression given to those of us who listened to the arguments for and against.
Unfortunately, the Minister did not seem to be listening to the arguments. He was reading from a brief which was uttered as if no arguments had been propounded in this Chamber from any quarter. I would ask him if he would be so good as to report the opinion of this Committee, not only the general opinion but that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This is not a matter of party politics. That is why I regret that that tone was introduced into a non-party political debate.
Lord Henley: I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that I brought in a party political tone to the debate. Possibly in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I might have made the odd party political point, but I do not think that I did in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I responded to every point that the noble Lord made. I have made a perfectly good case. I have no intention of reporting back the views of the noble Lord. I cannot move on
1230
this, and I have no intention of moving. I have dealt with every point that the noble Lord has made. I have stated quite clearly that the Government will issue guidance that will deal with this particular point. I am not going to take the amendment any further.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That sounds rather shirty to me. It is so extraordinary that this rather shirty and adamant response should come only the day after I had a much more agreeable conversation with the Minister, Mr. Robert Key.
When the noble Lord talks about the guidance, which is of course welcome, has it has any force? If it has no force, then the one-third, or whatever it is, of the authorities which are not up to best standards will continue to be below the best standards which we all want, and which the Prime Minister is urging on the noble Lord and his colleagues.
The noble Lord said that he answered all the points that I made. He did not answer the point I made about the Citizen's Charter. I would ask the noble Lord if he could be a little more flexible and report to his noble friends in the department, and possibly to the Prime Minister, that here is an amendment which he could readily accept and which would be squarely within the provisions of the Citizen's Charter.
His principal defence of the status quo is that as things have been they remain, or should remain, and that if a court has expressed an opinion, that that is the law of the Medes and the Persians. But of course that is not. We have put forward the case for the alteration of the law, the alteration of the law as was so clearly expressed in the courts quite recently. That is what I ask the noble Lord to take back in a more reasonable spirit than I thought he had uttered before he said he was not prepared to take anything back at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend replies to that, let me say at once that I did not find anything shirty—I think that was the word used—in his reply. It was the Minister's usual skilful, suave and effective debating style. However, I hope that he will have taken note that there was some unhappiness on all sides of the Committee about this issue, and that the mere statement that guidance will be given did not appear to have a wholly reassuring effect.
Perhaps at the next stage of the Bill the Minister will be in a position to tell us the terms of that guidance and the degree of authority which will be manifested in it. He must understand that there is unhappiness about this issue. It is not in any sense a party political issue, but there is a general feeling in the Committee. Perhaps an indication that he appreciates that and will take the matter back and discuss it with his right honourable friend, will be reassuring to some of us.
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend for those remarks about my shirtiness or lack of shirtiness. I merely responded to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the manner that I did because, to tell the truth, I took exception to his allegations that I had dealt with the noble Lord's arguments and the arguments of others in a less than polite manner and in possibly a cavalier manner. I dealt with the arguments as they

1231
were put to me, and I answered them fairly. I made the Government's position quite clear which was that we shall issue guidance to the local authorities. The guidance is something to which the local authorities must have regard.
As to the contents of the debate, the debate is a matter for the public record and it will appear in Hansard tomorrow. My honourable and right honourable friends in another place and in the Department of the Environment will be able to read and take note of the views of noble Lords.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I apologise if I upset him by calling his reply shirty. I should like to make friends with him, if I may, by withdrawing that word.
I am extremely obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for what he said. We are all anxious to see that this matter is taken aboard. When I asked the noble Lord whether he would report back to Ministers, he really said no. However, now that he has made plain that it is a matter of record, I cannot believe that they will not read what has been said, particularly by his noble friends. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistonemoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 96, line 30, at end insert ("at which stage the magistrates' court may adjudicate on the ability to pay and prescribe the amount and method of payment;").
The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat different amendment but it is on the same theme.
The purpose of my amendment, on which I have been advised by the Magistrates' Association, is to give magistrates some discretion in the making of a liability order to take account of the ability of the debtor to pay. Being close to local communities, magistrates are particularly aware of the effects, especially on young families, of unreasonable monetary or other penalties on the breadwinners of families. Indeed, local communities very much expect them to be so aware. Their association is thus particularly alert in seeking to avoid legislation which deprives magistrates' courts of the freedom to take account of ability to pay in sentencing or in equivalent decisions. I had an example of this in the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 through this House last summer, when I was able to persuade the Government to amend Section 58 of that Act to give courts greater discretion with regard to the binding over of parents or guardians than it originally intended.
With regard to Schedule 4 of the Bill, Mr. Roger Sims, who was also advised by the Magistrates' Association when the Bill was passing through another place, endeavoured to remove reference to magistrates' courts altogether from paragraph 3 of this schedule. The Government did not accept that in debate, and subsequent correspondence between the chairman of the Magistrates' Association and the department of my noble friend the Minister led to two letters from Mr. Robert Key on 19th December and
1232
13th January, insisting that magistrates should remain involved in the making of liability orders under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Bill.
For the reasons that I have given in my opening remarks, I am particularly keen that magistrates should have some discretion in making liability orders, but I have taken account of the correspondence to which I have referred in proposing Amendment No. 165.
I therefore hope very much that my noble friend will be able to deal favourably with the amendment. It meets a great deal of what people were asking for on Amendment No. 164. It enables magistrates to have the discretion which is so important for the maintenance of their status within the community in which they live. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My noble friend seeks an amendment to require the magistrates' courts to hold a means inquiry before making a liability order against a council tax defaulter and to prescribe how the outstanding amount should be repaid.
At the earlier stage of enforcement, that taxpayer will have failed to pay, despite the opportunity of instalments and the reminder from the authority. To a certain extent the summons and the liability order stage is the final reminder. Many people do pay at this stage, and most do not turn up at court. It would be impractical to hold a means inquiry at that particular stage. It would place an unacceptable burden on both the courts and the authorities. Having obtained the liability order, we believe that it is reasonable for the authorities then to be able to enforce payment using the remedies provided: distress (which we shall be discussing later); attachment of earnings; and so on. Magistrates will have to inquire into a taxpayer's means before imposing the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.
I do not believe that the inquiry that my noble friend is suggesting is either necessary or desirable at such an early stage as that of granting the liability order. One should also note that under the council tax those with the fewest means—those on income support—will always receive 100 per cent. benefit and those on low incomes above income support levels will always receive partial benefit. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am a little puzzled by that reply. The amendment contains the word "may" and not "shall" and seeks to give the magistrates a discretion. That would remove the air of rubber stamping that has unfortunately grown up in connection with how they have had to deal with community charge enforcement. I am not referring merely to the difficulties of which we have all recently been made aware. The amendment is not prescriptive. It would allow discretion.
Lord Henley: I accept the distinction made by the noble Baroness in pointing out that the word is "may" and not "shall". I still believe that it would impose a considerable extra burden on the courts because they would then have to consider whether they "shall" or

1233
not in these circumstances. I was trying to say that the most appropriate time to look at the means of the individual is at a much later stage and not at this earlier stage.
Lord Mottistone: I am surprised by my noble friend's reply. The amendment was suggested to me by the Magistrates' Association. If the association thought that there would be an unacceptable burden on the courts it would not have suggested the amendment. I do not see how my noble friend's department or the Department of the Environment can possibly know enough about the courts and how they function to make a decision of that nature. Once again my noble friend read out a reply which paid no regard to why and by whom the amendment was being put forward. It is harmful to the image of the magistrates in their local community if they are thought of as being involved in rubber stamping. As for the number of times they will use this facility, that would depend entirely on the circumstances. All they are asking for is to have the flexibility to be able to do this. In view of what has been said by myself and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I ask my noble friend to take the amendment away and think about it. I do not think that the departments concerned really know about this subject. It would be worth their while to listen to what I have had to say as put forward by the magistrates.
It is important that one does not forget the credibility of the magistrates in their area. There have been all kinds of complaints about them around the country during the past few years. It is important that they should be allowed to have the flexibility to do the job as they think fit. That is all the amendment asks for. It would go some way towards dealing with the problems that were mentioned in relation to Amendment No. 164. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be persuaded to say that he will take the amendment away and look at it again.
Lord Henley: Without prejudice and without giving any promises to my noble friend—I imagine that he is about to withdraw the amendment—we would be more than happy to have another look at it. I suspect that I shall be unable to move as my noble friend wishes me to, but I shall certainly have a look at it.
Lord Mottistone: I am sorry that my noble friend found it necessary to add those final remarks. They spoiled what was otherwise quite a good response. In view of that qualified undertaking and certainly reserving the right to come back again at the next stage, because I think that the amendment has been atrociously handled, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Bromptonmoved Amendment No. 166:
Page 99, line 48, after ("may") insert ("apply to").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 167. It has certain affinities with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I very much support the line that he took and I hope that he persists with it.
1234
Until now we have had, if I may say so without offence, stonewalling in the briefs read out by Ministers without regard to the arguments. I believe that my arguments on this amendment are just as compelling as the arguments that I put forward on Amendment No. 164. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a person who is in arrears with his council tax is not subjected to bailiff action without first having had an opportunity to repay the debt by reasonable, realistic instalments. What we are really trying to do is to create a better climate between council taxpayers who are poor and find themselves in arrears and those charged with collecting the council tax. That, I reiterate, is again within the terms of the Citizen's Charter, which is being promoted by the Prime Minister to the plaudits of us all. I am very keen on the Citizen's Charter and I hope that this proposal will be looked at in the light of the Citizen's Charter.
The evidence for this proposal comes from the grass roots, the citizens advice bureaux, which know where the trouble lies. They know where there is hardship. They know that a better climate between the tax gatherer and the citizen will lead to better relations between the local authority and the citizen and will lead to less payments in court fees and bailiffs fees and less distress. There would be a gain all round.
A major principle of modern debt recovery is that repayments should be put on to a systematic footing, and where it is necessary, for that to be done by manageable instalments. There are difficulties, of course. Many people are neither in paid work nor claiming income support, so the usual remedies cannot be applied. The citizens advice bureaux have on many occasions reported that local authorities have chosen to enforce a community charge debt by bailiff action immediately, without allowing attachment of earnings or deductions from income support even if those would have been appropriate.
I beg the Minister to take on board that this is hard evidence from citizens advice bureaux of what actually happens on the ground. It is no good saying that the Government will exhort local authorities to behave in a rather more reasonable way. What I have suggested is happening on the ground and is highly undesirable. It often happens that people on low incomes faced with bailiff action are not given an opportunity to pay off the arrears by instalments which take into account their ability to pay.
The solution is roughly in line with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is for bailiffs to have the same kind of licensing and authority as they have with the courts. Of course, that is the subject of another amendment; but it would help a great deal to create a more friendly atmosphere between the creditor and the debtor. We do not want to go to the ultimate resource, which is of course the bailiffs or imprisonment, unless we have pursued all other reasonable alternatives. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I should like local authorities to take a leaf out of the book of good practice of the courts. If they do so, there will be a better relationship between local authorities and the ratepayers, just as the good practice in the courts is creating a better relationship

1235
between those who work in the courts and those who unfortunately find themselves appearing before them. That is what the amendment aims to achieve. It must surely fall upon receptive ears on the Front Bench. I sincerely hope that it does. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: While I support the amendment in principle, I do not think that it meets the Bill's purpose nearly as well as Amendment No. 165.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am prepared to concede that point.
Lord Mottistone: I hold that view because it builds in another stage of enforcement and, in fact, would create potentially more work for the courts. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to say—perhaps in encouragement this time—that he will take away all three amendments and look at them carefully, observing what the people from the citizens advice bureaux say as well as the comments from those working in the courts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may follow up the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and say that I also hope that the Government will take away Amendment No. 168 and give it the same careful consideration. We on this side of the Committee very much support the amendment so elegantly and eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
I should like to make two points. First, as the noble Lord so rightly said, local authorities are inheriting a culture of non-payment and confrontation. Anything which de-escalates that situation and takes away some of the confrontation which has been experienced must be to the good of all parties—that is, local authorities, taxpayers and ultimately government —and to the principle of abiding by laws.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned, at the core of the problem is the fact that those who are in debt with local authorities may also be in multiple debt; for example, they may be in debt with fuel bills, with housing benefit or with the social fund, and so on. Moreover, if they are on income support, they may find that support being top-sliced and, if they are in a waged job, they may find that their earnings are attached. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is absolutely right; the only way to improve the situation is to enable people to repay their debts in small, realistic, regular and manageable proportions so that they will begin to enter a structured method of handling their money, however low or inadequate their income may be to meet their perceived needs. The amendment ensures that that possibility is more open than would otherwise be the case.
Certainly, a very large number of people who are in prison for under six months are there as small debtors; that is, for non-payment of fines. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would prevent that proportion from increasing and instead would decrease it, surely we should all support it.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I believe that my noble kinsman is very familiar with the problem of recovering sums of money from people on income support. Those are some of the people with whom we are dealing. He knows perfectly well that that cannot be done at once, especially if, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, it is a problem of multiple debt. It is very much more efficient to use instalments. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the amendments before the Committee are not in any sense party amendments; they are intended simply to be helpful. I do not know whether they will be found to be so, but that is the intention.
Decisions have to be taken about how much money can be recovered at any one time. If bailiffs are sent in immediately—there has been a considerable problem with that; and there is again such a problem in Brent which has been given a considerable amount of space in the local press and caused a good deal of ill will all around—they are not the best people to decide how much a person can reasonably pay. Bailiffs are not financial experts. They are concerned, necessarily, in a tense situation with keeping their own end in order.
A citizens advice bureau in Yorkshire reported a case with a client on income support who, when the bailiffs were sent in very early in the proceedings, offered to pay £2.50 a week. I hope that my noble kinsman will agree that that is not an entirely unreasonable rate of instalment when one is on income support. However, the bailiffs insisted that the minimum acceptable payment was £23 a week. I am sure that my noble kinsman will agree that the latter is not a reasonable minimum weekly payment to require of anyone who is on income support. He may even agree with the point that the bailiffs' judgment in that area is not expert.
Moreover, if people on a very low income have capital goods taken by distress—for example, fridges, cookers, and so on—they may, if they have young children, need to replace them. They may even put in social fund claims. That is not good for public expenditure. Then, of course, they will be building up even more debt and therefore the problem will continue. I believe that the amendment sketches out an easier way to deal with the problem.
Lord Henley: I hope that I can be helpful—as, indeed, I always try to be—in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I also hope that I was equally as helpful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone when I responded to his amendment. There are problems attached to the amendments. But if Members of the Committee are prepared to listen to me, I can say that there are matters that we should like to reconsider if the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.
As I see it, the problem with Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 is that they seek to bring a second court hearing into the enforcement procedure for the council tax so far as concerns distress. That could certainly hold up the enforcement procedure without any compensating benefit. But, what I want to say is that one must distinguish between the pursuit of

1237
non-payment and the practice of the local authorities. Obviously, one can be concerned that many local authorities are possibly using distress at far too early a stage in the proceedings and before they have exhausted other remedies.
The reason we are prepared to consider the matter further in relation to Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 is that the emphasis must be very much upon helping people to pay rather than pursuing the matter with the prosecution service; and certainly upon improving the practice of local authorities. That is what the Citizen's Charter is all about. But, having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to consider withdrawing the amendment. As I said, there are matters in terms of local authority practice that we should like to consider. I should be unwilling to go down the precise line set out in the amendment, especially as regards distress because that has implications in other matters beyond the council tax field.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I find that answer to be helpful. Indeed, it is an emollient answer. I hope that the noble Lord will extend the emollience of that answer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to my previous amendment and the amendment which is to be moved by the noble Baroness. They all interrelate; they all deal with the same subject. The Citizen's Charter is relevant to all of them.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that the emphasis should be on the local authorities acting under a statutory authority or by virtue of a government circular, and on helping people to pay. That is a most important principle. I was glad to hear the noble Lord utter it. Equally, I was glad to hear him say that there are matters in the amendment about which Her Majesty's Government would like to think again. I hope that they will think about the whole group of amendments. Having said that, I clearly not only wish to but shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 168:
Page 100, line 17, at end insert:
("(d) a distress may only be made by prescribed persons;
(e) a distress may only be made in prescribed circumstances (including the giving of notice);
(f) prescribed goods may be exempted from a distress;
(g) costs of a distress may be prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: I understand that about 77 per cent. of summonses result in liability orders and that some local authorities send all their liability orders immediately to the debt bailiff for distress. Previous amendments have dealt to some extent with the question of trying to make debts manageable by ensuring benefit offsets, and payment by instalments, and by giving greater flexibility to the magistrates' courts to determine the procedure. In other words, they have dealt with the management of debt.
The amendment deals with the other side of that issue, which has already been trailed to some extent in previous amendments—the management not of the debt but of the bailiffs. Bailiffs employed by the Lord
1238
Chancellor's Department for county court procedures are rigorously screened, trained, examined and certificated. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 limited their powers of distraint so that they could not take essential items of clothing or household goods. Certified bailiffs appear to have skill in negotiating instalment payments and, although, for example, in 1989 county court bailiffs had about 1.25 million warrants to seize goods only 1,900 sales took place. The others were clearly negotiated in all sorts of ways. Relatively few complaints appear to arise as a result of the work of county court bailiffs.
In the area of the community charge or the council tax, local authorities may use their own bailiffs, or, as is often the case, private bailiffs. The rigorous controls that apply to county court bailiffs therefore do not exist. I am not arguing that distraint procedures are unnecessary, although, like most others, I find them deeply distasteful. I suggest that they should apply only where there is a capacity to pay or a wilful refusal to pay, with strict controls over what goods may be taken and what additional costs may fall on a household pressed by this process, and with tight controls over the behaviour of bailiffs to avoid the bullying, extortion and harassment which has too often given bailiffs a bad name.
Local authorities have sought to introduce a code of practice. Most councils do their best to ensure good standards and use private bailiffs as a last resort; nevertheless, the cases brought to our notice by the CAB have been full of horrifying tales. There are stories of bailiffs seizing essential goods. For example, they seized from a mother with an incontinent disabled daughter a washing machine which had been provided by a loan from the Social Fund which the mother still had to repay. She had somehow to find the resources to buy another washing machine. There have been accounts of bailiffs seizing goods of greater value than necessary to pay off the debt, and selling those goods at auctions, without reserve prices, and well below their value.
The 1990 report on private bailiffs compiled by the NCC tells of the case of a gold and diamond engagement ring which was taken to cover a debt of £140. It was sold for £14. The woman was still left with a debt of £107 after expenses were met and with no engagement ring. There are accounts of threatening behaviour. The woman who lost her engagement ring received a further visit from the bailiff to chase up the £107. He forced entry, although she was alone with her children, and improperly threatened her with the police if she did not settle the rest of the account on the spot. She borrowed money from her neighbours.
Even where repayments have been arranged bailiffs have refused to stop the execution of distress warrants. In addition, the CAB and the NCC report that bailiffs often add high charges which multiply the outstanding debt; for example, they have charged £70 for the visit of a van and so much a day for walk-in possession. That can easily double the debt and spiral down the indebtedness even further.
Voluntary codes of practice, as recommended by the Minister in another place, have been tried, are welcome, and are inadequate. I shall give an example.

1239
A Cheshire CAB reported that its local authority had a code of practice which included the provision that the bailiff must identify himself correctly and show some form of identification. However, the same CAB reports a case of where those same bailiffs bluffed their way into premises by saying that they were council employees. The same firm of bailiffs also breached common law by saying that they had taken walk-in possession by putting a blank inventory through the door. Eventually, the local authority was persuaded to strike that firm of bailiffs off its list, but after three months it was reinstated because its collection rates were so good. That is not surprising. That illustrates the problem which results from the local authority's position as landlord or debt-pursuer as opposed to that of protector of the well-being of all its citizens.
The amendment would do much to remedy the problem. It would ensure that bailiffs operating under magistrates' warrants would be subject to the same standards of professional behaviour as currently apply to county court bailiffs. It would prevent unsuitable people acting as bailiffs. They should be certificated and have their good character assessed. Secondly, the people upon whom distress is to be levied should be fully informed of their rights. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, quoted the Citizen's Charter and no other behaviour should be accepted. People should be given the same notification as in the case of rents. Thirdly, as with rent distress, any such warrant should exempt essential household goods, clothing, bedding, furniture and household equipment essential for basic domestic needs. Families need those goods, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, they would have to replace them at a higher cost, often with high interest rates which would push them further into debt.
Finally, the amendment would provide that the additional, and sometimes proper, costs surcharged by the bailiffs would he properly controlled, assessed and charged. We ask for the amendment to be accepted by the Government so that the provision is on the face of the Bill. The voluntary code of practice is inadequate and, where it has been tried, has broken down. If it is not on the face of the Bill, there is no sanction available in respect of those bailiffs who operate like bully-boys and flout the code. At its core, the amendment would professionalise the bailiff service operating from magistrates' courts as it currently professionalised that of county court bailiffs. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I have one complaint only about the amendment: it is moved at least 400 years too late. The problem is long standing. The problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, drew attention have been with us for a long time. Recently I was reading the list of goods distrained from John Hampden's tenants for non-payment of ship money. They included large numbers of frying pans and family bundles. It used to be the law that people might not be distrained in the tools of their trade. The utility of that is obvious: if they are unable to work they
1240
cannot pay off debt. I am not clear whether that still is the law. If it is not, it should be. If it is, it needs reasserting.
I agree with the noble Baroness: the problem usually resides in the use of private bailiffs. Again, there have been recent examples in Brent. If I may be forgiven another little historical excursion, the moment the collection of ship money began to break down was when they stopped using the sheriff's bailiffs, and started using private bailiffs, who of course do not always know exactly what they are about.
The proposal to exempt prescribed goods from distress is an important one. The case mentioned by the noble Baroness of the washing machine which was being paid for by a loan from the Social Fund is one which suggests that the Government may have a direct as well as a public interest in some of the cases we are discussing.
Finally, the issue of bailiffs' fees has again been with us for centuries. For anyone to be able to fix and enforce, without consent, his own level of charges at his own discretion is not a free market transaction, it is something with a dangerous resemblance to extortion and ought to be controlled.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to say only a brief word because so much of the ground has been covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. As so often happens, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave us a welcome tutorial and took us back to the 17th century. It was particularly agreeable that he talked about Hampden and ship money. It almost made me wish to describe the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, as our "village Hampden" because she spoke so well and eloquently on the subject.
I reiterate the importance to the Government of looking at the amendment sympathetically and through the spectacles of the Citizen's Charter. On 12th July 1991, speaking in the House of Commons, Mr. Robert Key said at col. 1293:
"It is important that the activities of bailiffs are subject to fair but stringent controls".
That gives me hope that the Government will consider the amendment sympathetically. He also stated:
"Bailiffs are a feature of life in this country. I shall be talking to representatives of the citizens advice bureaux about their worries regarding bailiffs to see whether I can encourage them to talk directly to the bailiffs about those issues".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 27/11/91; col. 549.]
That is all very well, but citizens advice bureaux do not have the authority of the Government. They already talk to the bailiffs, but it is not much use their complaining to bailiffs, some of whom are fairly rough and ready and who have the freedom to act in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described.
Thus, although the citizens advice bureaux—who are the real village Hampdens—do their best out there in the country, they do not have the authority which is needed from central government. The situation cannot go on for much longer.
The chairman of the National Consumer Council felt strongly on the subject. As so much emphasis is being placed on consumers' rights, the words of that

1241
lady should be well and truly heeded by the Government. We cannot allow bailiffs to act in this way without direction. The first step is to assimilate the kind of conduct which they are subject to in the courts to other areas where bailiffs are used.
Lord Henley: My noble kinsman said that the amendment came 400 years too late. I can only say that I rather wish it had been dealt with 400 years ago and then I should not be dealing with it tonight. The amendment put by the noble Baroness, "our village Hampden", as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, called her, seeks to provide for the prescription of the operation of distress and further controls on bailiffs, as they operate in the field. I sympathise and the Government sympathise with the problems that some debtors encounter in their dealings with certain bailiffs. I accept that in some cases bailiffs are clearly working outside the law. However, I must stress that there are remedies available in such cases. I do not believe that to change the law on bailiffs because of what one might call "a few bad apples" would be acceptable in the Bill for two main reasons.
First, distress is used in areas other than local taxation. There are statutory provisions which have been interpreted by the courts. It would not be right for legislation dealing just with the council tax on this occasion to deal with the procedures for distress which may be used in many other areas.
Secondly, as regards local taxation, there are codes of practice although I know that our village Hampden takes very little note of them. They are issued by local authorities to the bailiffs whom they employ to provide adequate safeguards for the debtors as regards the methods of operation and the goods to be seized. I should say in passing that in the distressing —perhaps "distressing" is the wrong word to use—in the appalling examples which the noble Baroness gave, there are remedies in such circumstances—for example, appeals to the magistrates—which the individual can pursue.
Guidance about what such codes might include is given in a practice note issued by the Department of the Environment and it has recently been revised by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. Similar guidance will be issued for the council tax.
Turning to the costs of distress for council tax, these can only be recovered in an amount fixed by regulations or determined in accordance with rules set out in regulations. The Bill also provides for regulations stating that any person may appeal to a magistrates' court if he is aggrieved by the levy or the attempted levy. We intend to provide for this in regulations.
One must stress that there is a distinction between magistrates' courts and the county courts; the magistrates' courts do not have their own bailiffs to be used in the way that county courts do. The important point to remember is that the question of the use of bailiffs goes far wider than the Bill and it would not be right to make changes as to how they should work in regard to the council tax, but not in other ways. The whole subject might be looked at in other ways, but not under this Bill.
1242
I hope that what I said on the earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will be enough to show that I am prepared to consider further examination of the amendments. However, it would not be right to take the suggestion of control on bailiffs any further on this occasion under this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Will the noble Lord consider that we might have to wait another 300 years before anything is done, if every government department has to be consulted about the use of bailiffs? Something has already been done piecemeal under the provisions of the courts. If another provision on bailiffs concerning distress on failure to pay local taxation were added, it would be one more step forward. This is the way in which traditionally we operate. It would be good if this extra step were taken under the Bill and it could gradually be extended in other Bills as the opportunity arises. I beg the noble Lord to consider that course of action rather than our having to wait for every government department to have its say.
Lord Henley: I am sorry that the noble Lord takes such a pessimistic view. I do not think that I can go further; I do not believe that the Bill would be the right place in which to do so. The noble Lord suggested that one step could be built on later, but it would not be right that bailiffs operating from magistrates' courts should come under one form of control in this case and another in other matters. Whether the whole subject of bailiffs and their control could be considered more generally is another matter, but this Bill is not the place to do so.
Lord Mottistone: I must say that my noble friend is being terribly stuffy again. This is an important point which ought to be tackled. The stories which the noble Baroness gave us were only some of those produced by the citizens' advice bureaux. The Government ought to say that they will take the suggestion away, even if they do not introduce provisions in this Bill. They should be able to do that in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggested. Although I do not believe that it would be wise for the noble Baroness to press this amendment to a Division, I hope she will stay on the attack on this matter. I hope that she will obtain advice on inserting a measure in the Bill as regards control of private bailiffs.
Lord Henley: It is entirely up to the noble Baroness to decide whether to press this amendment to a Division. That is not for me to decide. However, I do not believe this Bill is a suitable place to make changes to the control of bailiffs in a single field. One might then be left with the problem of a bailiff pursuing, as it were, two different debts—one relating to the council tax and the other relating to something else —and having to operate under different rules. I accept there are some bad apples. I believe those were the very words I used earlier. Some bailiffs are not following the correct procedures and some are working outside the law. However, remedies are

1243
available in such cases. I can go no further than that. I cannot accept the argument that we can take one step forward with regard to bailiffs in this Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for their extremely helpful comments. They share the concern that has been expressed not just in this Chamber but also outside that some bailiffs behave notoriously badly. I accept the Minister was entirely conciliatory in his tone and that he appreciated that a problem exists. However, I had hoped that he would have been able to give us more of an indication that this matter could be approached in a step by step fashion.
I hope I may adopt the terminology that has been used in the debate. The Minister has acknowledged there are some bad apples. That is true also of mini-cab drivers, the police or any profession. The Independent has, for example, written about the bad practices of certain local authorities. However, that is not an argument for standing aside. In this amendment we seek to bring bad practice—that may be exemplified only by a few people, although I suspect the problem is bigger than that—up to professional standards.
The Minister made three points. On behalf of this side of the Committee, I cannot accept any of them. First, he said it would be wrong to deal in isolation with only one area of magistrates' bailiffs' work. However, people who are in debt with their council tax may often—though this is not always the case—have problems in paying their housing rent. I understand that housing rent payments are pursued by the county courts with county court bailiffs, who operate to high standards. Therefore a person who is in debt with his council tax and with his housing rent may receive visits from one set of bailiffs who are acting to high professional standards and other visits from magistrates courts' bailiffs who are operating under a magistrates' warrant. The latter bailiffs may not be acting to high professional standards.
This Bill deals with one of the two prime sources of finance for a local authority, the council tax. Therefore I believe it is entirely proper to seek to brigade the behaviour of private bailiffs operating under the authority of magistrates' courts with the behaviour of county court bailiffs who seek to pursue rent debts. Often the same defaulters are involved in both cases. The two major debts which are most likely to threaten a person with homelessness and imprisonment should, I believe, be brought into line as regards the treatment of defaulters by bailiffs. In that way defaulting citizens, to whom the Citizen's Charter is addressed, would receive similar treatment from similar officials seeking the repayment of similar debts.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out that individuals can appeal to magistrates if bailiffs behave improperly. The Minister is correct in an abstract sense. However, such an appeal presumes a degree of self-confidence and competence on the part of the person making the appeal. By definition, those people who are in default of their council tax are least
1244
likely to make such appeals. By definition, those people are inadequate as regards handling their money and they probably face a multiplicity of debts. They may be bullied by a bailiff into paying off the debt he is pursuing, thereupon defaulting on all the other regular payments they are required to meet.
Thirdly, the Minister seemed to believe that a voluntary code of practice was adequate and would meet the needs that have been identified. My own local authority has voluntary codes of practice. Its councillors are extremely careful to monitor the behaviour of bailiffs. Nonetheless we receive regular and repeated complaints, not just from injured individuals but from citizens advice bureaux, churches and other such bodies. Even where the most active local authorities operate the most careful scrutiny, bad practice continues to occur. Therefore the voluntary approach has failed and a statutory response must take its place. I accept this is not the time to press the amendment, but if the Minister is not willing to help us on this matter we shall return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage does not resume before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibition) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 13) Order 1991
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghornerose to move, That the order laid before the House on 20th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order bans fishing for velvet and green crabs in all areas of sea around the Orkney islands. It was made pm 20th December following test results from samples of velvet crabs which showed levels of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxin above the accepted safety level.
Our aim in making the order is to ensure effective protection of the public from this naturally occurring PSP toxin with minimum disruption of the shellfish market. Continued monitoring of velvet crab samples from the affected area has shown that toxin levels are now falling. As a result it has been possible to lift the restrictions from a large part of the area, where the PSP toxin has subsided to a safe level. This was done by the making of a partial revocation order on 22nd January.
The No. 13 order as partially revoked still applies, however, to the area of sea north of the mainland surrounding the Islands of Eday, Sanday, North Ronaldsay and the north part of Stronsay as defined in the schedule to the partial revocation order. I wish to assure your Lordships that the remaining ban will remain in force only for as long as is necessary and no

1245
longer. The position is being closely monitored. As with previous closures, the No. 13 order will be fully revoked as soon as test results from the closed area and scientific and medical advice indicate that it is safe to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 20th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for having explained the purpose of the order. It is unfortunate that shellfish appear to absorb materials from the sea that are injurious to human health. It is therefore important that the authorities keep such shellfish under close observation. For that reason I welcome this order.
I believe from what the Minister has said that a partial revocation order was made on 22nd January of this year. However, the order still applies in a certain area. I believe the position is rather confusing. Would it not have been better to wait until restrictions on the whole area could have been lifted? The present situation could cause ordinary members of the public some bewilderment. It is bewildering when an order may be partially revoked for a mere fortnight. That said, I have no basic objection to the order. I believe the authorities do a good job in this matter, but that a little more consistency could improve the situation.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for those words. The answer to the point he raised is that the protection of public health must remain of the utmost importance.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I accept that it is an important matter and I agree that the authorities have acted correctly. However, my question relates to why the prohibition was removed for a very short time and then reinstated. Was there any dispute among the inspectors and the medical authorities as to whether the prohibition should have been removed? I am trying to be helpful in suggesting that the public might have been less confused had the order been maintained until a more permanent decision could be made covering a wider area than the area outlined in the order.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the area was closed fully on 20th December. We are relaxing the ban because the situation is improving. Perhaps after the debate I can help the noble Lord by showing him a map.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
7.50 p.m.
Lord Belsteadrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th December be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in June 1989 the Government produced a report, Tourism in Northern Ireland - A View to the Future. It was intended less as
1246
a blueprint for the future than as a pointer to the basic strengths of the industry and how they might be developed. It also identified the main obstacles to growth which would have to be overcome.
The report incorporated many constructive proposals and suggestions put forward by the industry in the course of consultation. The approach proposed involves repackaging of the tourist product and its effective marketing at home and abroad; the development of key centres of excellence to provide a platform for growth; encouraging community-led tourism projects; and continued joint marketing initiatives between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the tourist board in the South.
The key to the success of the approach was seen to lie in the active involvement of the whole tourist sector, public and private, through partnership between the Government, the tourist board and the industry, the top priority being to make the industry more competitive and better prepared for the challenges which lie ahead. That is very important to the economic well-being of Northern Ireland in terms of increased earnings from overseas, much-needed job opportunities and vital secondary economic activity.
After nearly two decades of difficulty resulting from terrorism there is nonetheless clear and encouraging evidence that people from outside Northern Ireland see Northern Ireland as an attractive place to visit. That is not entirely surprising. After all, Northern Ireland has some of the most beautiful and varied scenery to be found and, wherever they go in Northern Ireland, visitors will find a genuinely warm and generous welcome from people who resolutely stick to their work and their duty in the face of acts of criminal terrorism. Visitor figures for 1990 were an all-time record—some 1,153,000 visitors in total. Particularly significant is the fact that one in five visitors came to Northern Ireland in that year exclusively for a holiday, compared with a figure of one in nine 10 years ago. Estimated figures for 1991 remain encouraging, despite the fact that it was a year of international recession and conflict in the Gulf.
Much of that success results from the excellent work now being done by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I warmly congratulate the chairman and the board on the enterprise it has shown.
Growth can, however, be sustained and expanded only by sticking to the development strategy, which places a higher priority on the development of a desirable tourism infrastructure and emphasises the importance of high standards of presentation and service. The order places the board in a central role in tourism development, increasing its powers in ways which will enable it to discharge the vitally important task of building substantially on the present competitiveness of the tourism industry.
Part I of the order, comprising Articles 1 and 2, is introductory and covers technical matters. Part II deals with the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The board, as a legal entity, will continue to exist, under Article 3, already restructured and strengthened by new expertise in order to meet the challenges ahead. The maximum membership of the board is reduced from 14 to nine by Schedule 1. That

1247
reflects a general movement towards smaller, more cohesive bodies. A smaller board will allow for the inclusion of the necessary range of skills and experience and yet will be compact enough to ensure effective decision-making.
Overall responsibility for policy on tourism will remain with the Government as a component of our economic strategy for Northern Ireland. Responsibility for certain tourism functions presently carried out by the Department of Economic Development will, however, be transferred to the board, including direct operational responsibility for the tourism programmes sponsored by the European Community and the International Fund for Ireland.
Another key function of the board will be to work closely with all other tourism interests in Northern Ireland so that a common and sensible working framework can be developed. That is reflected in the new statutory requirement in Article 4 for the board to set up and maintain consultative arrangements with public and private sector tourist interests. In anticipation of that provision the board has already initiated new arrangements for consultation with district councils.
Other changes will enable the board to operate on a more commercial basis while at the same time ensuring that it retains the necessary accountability. For example it may become directly involved in merchandising Northern Ireland products, accept commissions for booking overnight accommodation and charge for non-statutory services such as that provided by the board to the courts in liquor licensing matters.
All those changes represent a considerable and very real strengthening of the board's powers. The board is firmly and rightly placed in the lead role in the development of the Province's tourism industry.
Part III of the order introduces a power to devise a scheme of selective financial assistance. A preliminary scheme, involving flexibility and selectiveness, is already in operation and has attracted a range of very promising projects.
In a recent survey commissioned by the Government and the tourist board, anxiety was expressed about the quality of some of Northern Ireland's existing hotels and guesthouses. It was concluded that, if the industry is to compete effectively in the tourism market-place and the board to meet its ambitious visitor targets, there must be improvements in the quality and value for money of the accommodation sector. Today's international visitors expect that.
The problems identified by the study are directly addressed in Part IV of the order. There are, first, new regulatory provisions. Those are confined, unlike the previous legislation, to overnight tourist accommodation provided by way of trade or business, and are directed at ensuring that only those establishments which meet minimum standards are certified by the tourist board. Secondly, the order allows the board to introduce a voluntary system of classification and grading which classifies establishments according to the range of facilities available and grades them
1248
against quality of product and consumer care yardsticks. I am confident that that combination of regulatory and voluntary arrangements will enable the board to raise the quality of the present and future stock of tourist accommodation.
Part V of the order—Articles 30–32—deals with the tourism powers of district councils. Although there are no major changes to the existing powers of the councils, provision is made for greater co-operation and partnership between the councils and the board in the development and marketing of tourism across the country.
Part VI of the order is technical. It provides for the repeal of the 1948 Act.
I am confident that the order provides the sound basis that is needed to ensure a competitive tourist industry that will make a major contribution to the economic well-being of Northern Ireland and will attract people to that most beautiful of countries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th December be approved.—[Lord Belstead.]
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, before I deal with the draft order which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has introduced, I should like to take this opportunity of associating all my colleagues on these Benches with the sense of outrage which was expressed in the Secretary of State's Statement in the House of Commons a week ago yesterday following the murder of the seven construction workers on their way home in the County of Tyrone. We should like it to be clearly understood that we stand squarely behind the Secretary of State's Statement and his commitment to strengthen the security forces in the Province while also striving for a political solution.
I turn now to the draft order. With his characteristic clarity, the noble Lord explained its background and detailed provisions. We agree with the main purpose of the legislation. We believe that there is an overwhelming case for enhancing investment in the tourist industry in order to make Northern Ireland even more attractive to tourists, though no doubt the single most important contribution to that industry would be the restoration of peace and normality in that singularly beautiful Province.
Fortunately, I had the benefit of reading the debate on this order when it passed through another place. Many questions and issues of detail were then addressed to the Minister. I believe that we on these Benches can best help by repeating this evening one or two of the questions which were addressed to the Minister and by asking a few additional ones. I shall do so in a friendly way.
Article 4 proposes that the new tourist board shall have wide-ranging functions. Indeed, there is quite a list of functions. However, there is no specific reference to a right for the board to conduct research for the tourist industry, which most of us think the board should be developing. I appreciate that the Minister may well say that that is provided for in paragraph (2) (i). But it seems to me that much is to be said for putting that point beyond dispute.

1249
Again, it is not clear to me whether the board will have the power to undertake activities outside the United Kingdom; neither is it clear to me what will be the relationship between it and the British Tourist Board. Perhaps the Minister can also clarify the role of the Department of Economic Development. We should like to know what residual tourism functions will be exercised by the department.
Turning to Part III of the order, I am sure that the Minister will know that anxiety was expressed in another place about a penal rate of interest which may be charged under Article 11(4) when an instalment of a loan repayment is overdue. Any words of comfort that the Minister can give about that power, which by virtue of the article can overrule any statutory provision or rule of law to the contrary, will be welcome.
On the other hand, I should have expected that the board would have the power to call upon a borrower to produce accounts and records relating to a loan project and also to have the right to inspect the relevant accounts and records. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether under this order or any other legislation the board will have the right of access to the relevant documents and records. Having asked that question, I have a feeling that that point has probably not been overlooked.
In Part IV, Article 12 contains a list of tourist establishments for the purposes of the order. Given the importance of caravan parks for the modern tourist, why is that not referred to specifically in Article 12? I wonder whether we are correct in assuming that a caravan park is included in the term "self-catering establishment" or any other term.
Article 14 is very important; but does it mean that every tourist establishment in Northern Ireland henceforth will have to obtain a certificate of registration under Article 13 unless they have been exempted from registration under Article 25? If that is the position—that they have to be registered unless they are exempted—can the Minister indicate the scope of the exemptions? Can he forecast how they will apply?
I am a little bothered about the possible operation of Article 13(12). As I read that subsection, where a proprietor has sold a tourist establishment, it will be necessary for him to inform the board of the change of ownership. I understand that and it is fine. But on receipt of the notification of change of ownership, as I understand the article, the board may then proceed to attach new conditions to the certificate. Those conditions may not be acceptable to the purchaser, who may not have foreseen that such conditions would be imposed. Nevertheless, the purchaser cannot go back to the vendor to renegotiate the terms of the purchase. The question therefore is whether there will be a procedure whereby a proposed purchaser of a tourist establishment can ascertain before he signs a contract of purchase what new conditions, if any, the board proposes to attach to his certificate.
There is another point which causes me concern. Where a proprietor appeals to the county court against a notice of revocation of the certificate, he will nevertheless have to comply with the notice and close
1250
his establishment pending hearing of the appeal. That is how I read Article 13. If my understanding is correct, I must ask whether that is fair.
There are two possible drafting points that I should like to mention to the Minister. A drafting point may arise in respect of Article 29—the interpretation article —which defines the meaning of the word "premises" when used in Part IV of the order. I have been unable to spot the word "premises" on a single occasion in that part of the order. I am sure it must be there. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point.
The second possible drafting point arises out of Article 30(3) (b). I should like to know whether the district councils will have the power to construct and lay down a supply of drinking water to a tourist amenity. Unless there are special regulations in force in Northern Ireland, I should have thought that the district council would have such a power. If that is the position, I suggest that it should be spelt out in the article.
I come now to the schedule and therefore to my final point, which relates to the membership of the new board. As the noble Lord has explained, it will consist of a reduced membership of nine. The members will be appointed by the head of the department. What bothers me is that a board member may be removed at any time merely by the head of the department giving the member notice in writing, without stating the reason for the termination of his board membership. I am a little surprised that the department has gone as far as that.
I have checked the television legislation. I note that the Secretaries of State for England, Wales and Scotland have not been given that sweeping power and they have managed perfectly well without it. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept that this power to terminate membership of the board without stating reasons, and reasons which are prescribed by Parliament, is absolutely necessary in Northern Ireland.
It is clear from what I have said that I believe that the grounds for removal should be set out in the order and approved by Parliament. I wonder whether the Minister can give any reassurance on that point. I hope that I have said enough to suggest that the order would ordinarily deserve a Committee stage. Nevertheless, we shall gladly support it without a Committee stage.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I welcome the order in that it will reorganise the tourist board in the longer run. I thank my noble friend for his explanation as to how it will work. At this stage I must declare an interest since I run a guest house in County Fermanagh with shooting and fishing. I hope to be one of the people who will apply to the tourist board for a grant which it may be able to give after this order is enacted.
The tourist industry of Northern Ireland was worth £153 million in 1990 and employed approximately 9,000 people. That means that it is a major success story as an industry within the Province. If one compares it to the sea fishing industry, which was

1251
worth £30 million and employed 2,500 people, one will see that the tourist industry is of significance within the Province. Therefore it is important that we get matters right with this order or any other legislation.
At the moment tourism is growing rapidly. The interesting fact is that it is not over-dependent on the visitor from Great Britain. I do not mean that as any reflection on people this side of the water, but merely that the tourist industry is fully international. When one compares the figures between 1989 and 1990, the numbers of visitors from Great Britain did not change. From the Irish Republic they increased by 4 per cent., from North America by 21 per cent. and from Europe by 53 per cent. I believe that that last figure is significant. It not only shows how the tourist industry has tackled the European question of the open market but it shows that it has had a major success in that market. I am sure that it will continue to do so.
It is also important—because there are those who will question it—that the tourist industry runs throughout both communities in Northern Ireland. There is no circumstance under which a notable difference would appear. Both communities work closely together in the industry.
In as much as this order is most welcome, it is also rather sad. A number of points have been brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and in a very good debate in another place. They are all good points, but because this is an order it is sad that we cannot change or improve it in any way.
There is no point going into great detail on what was said in another place. However, I endorse a great many of the reservations which have been expressed both there and in this House. There are a couple of points which I wish to emphasise. The first concerns the board that is appointed under the order. It is surprising that there are no county representatives. I know that my noble friend has said that provision is being made for them to be brought in at some stage for discussion or that the means to do so will be there. For example, in Fermanagh, where I live, the county council is in some respects ahead of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. We have heard about the recent report of the board pointing out certain matters which are not as good as they might be in Northern Ireland. County Fermanagh Council made a report two years ago and has produced a strategic study well ahead of the board.
Fermanagh is already the centre for international tourists who come to Northern Ireland. They come to Fermanagh as a destination and stay there. That situation will improve in the next few years with the various projects that are coming forward at the moment. I refer to the opening of Ballyconnell Canal linking the Erne and Shannon systems, a new boating centre in the Upper Lough Erne and the multimillion pound country activity and equitation centre at Irvinestown. It is unlikely, knowing Northern Ireland and the north coast and how it is used by local people, that it will lose its foremost place in the international market.
1252
Those who saw "The Antiques Roadshow" from Enniskillen on Sunday may have heard the commentary that it was the most beautiful and unspoilt location that the programme had ever been to. That is undoubtedly true. Taking all that into account, how is it that the leading council in tourism in Northern Ireland has no councillor on the board or even the very able chief executive who has been the brains behind a great deal of what has gone on there in the past few years? We have a large unspoilt area. We must not allow it to be destroyed. It must be developed carefully.
Tourism is Fermanagh's future and main industry. There is little enough democracy in the Province. The people of Fermanagh feel very strongly that they are being ignored through having no representation of their choice on the board. The Northern Ireland Office must understand that and recognise that every resident of the county, especially the farmers, are partners in the tourist industry by keeping the county attractive as an international tourist destination. Their advice and help are important. Who knows better how to keep Fermanagh afloat in the kind of weather that we have.
The other concern I wish to voice is this. We are pleased with the new powers that the tourist board will have. But how accountable will it be and to whom? How will it be assessed, how frequently and by whom? I do not wish to go into detail about that, but these are questions which we have every right to ask, reading through the order as it is.
There is one other factor which affects all industries but tourism in particular. It is very definitely the current security situation. However, I wish to mention the activities of the security forces and how they affect tourism in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that in some ways the security forces are run in a manner similar to the running of the MOD by government in this country and that department tends to be separate from much of normal life.
What service personnel do daily does not really affect many people and because they are non-profit-making they do not come up for discussion in those terms. However, as regards Northern Ireland, everything changes. Everything that the security forces do in the Province affects daily business life, social life and all too frequently religious activity. The security side of the NIO seems to be in a world of its own. It is all too secret or things have to be done, as it says, all too quickly. There is little or no discussion about factors which are very often not very secret ultimately, and neither should they be.
For example, it is extraordinary when I last inquired, that Mr. Needham who looks after our industry interests, had met the GOC only once. That shows a severe lack of communication. On the security side no doubt the GOC is quite capable of informing him of what he requires to carry out his security. But it is sad that Mr. Needham is unable to have an input into matters which would not compromise security but which would help industry and tourism in particular. Will my noble friend endeavour to speak to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office about the issue, and perhaps we can have further discussions?

1253
I welcome the order and I hope that the future of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will be as good as it appears.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to compliment my noble friend on his presentation of the order. I am one of many who appreciates everything that he says about Northern Ireland. I also concur with everything that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough said about Northern Ireland and in particular about County Fermanagh.
My noble friend Lord Belstead pointed out the need for the board. I heard on the media the acting chairman of the board explaining how the standards set out in the order need to be achieved. If that person remains in the framework and will act as part of the establishment, Northern Ireland will be well led.
Part IV of the order was of some interest to me. Will my noble friend explain the existing system perhaps at a later stage? Will the system as set out in Part IV be different in any major way from the existing system? The system may already be organised county by county. If it is starting from scratch, if there is a cold start, it might take a year or two to establish. It is essential that the standards are set at a high level and that improvements are sought annually.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about a caravan park. I looked at the definition of tourist accommodation on page 3, Article 2, and of tourist establishments on page 18, Article 29. It appears that as a result of a combination of both definitions there is a lacuna in Article 12. No doubt my noble friend will have an excellent explanation for that.
I have one other impudent query. The section dealing with interpretation at the bottom of page 3 states:
"'tourist amenity, means an amenity, facility or service provided primarily for tourists, but does not include tourist accommodation"'.
Within that definition could be included something that might go with overnight accommodation; it is the wicked four-letter word "food". My noble friend and I qualify as tourists because in many cases we travel in Northern Ireland purely for pleasure to appreciate the people, the scenery and everything else. Will the excellent high standard of Northern Ireland breakfasts—that is Ulster fry, soda bread and the rest—be classified and checked under the certification in Part IV? If not, why not? It appears to me that "amenity" covers food.
I commend the order. I believe that it will go a long way towards keeping tourism pre-eminent in Northern Ireland.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and clear explanation of the order. I warmly welcome the tribute that he paid to workers in all levels of the tourist industry. They carry on with smiling faces to provide an excellent service, in spite of all the troubles with which they are confronted. I agree that the tourist industry is important to the employment situation in Northern Ireland. It is also a vital aspect of our Northern Ireland cross-community
1254
and social interchange. Tourism assists in strengthening and promoting the necessary worldwide communications network. It helps in positive terms to provide a genuine picture of the Province and in building an active international understanding of the Province in diplomatic terms.
We in Northern Ireland are proud of our great wealth of natural heritage; our glens of Antrim, our mountains of Mourne and the Giants' Causeway. In addition, the golf courses, lakes and rivers provide so much enjoyment to sportsmen. Tourism means visitors from Britain, the Irish Republic, America and Europe. It is vital that the Province should be attractive, made readily available to and regularly used by all Northern Ireland citizens for recreation, weekends and for family holiday enjoyment. The intermingling between local inhabitants and visitors is a help and encouragement to the promotion of the Province in a worldwide sense. It is important that no cleavage appears in the facilities; what is available to tourists and visitors should not be excluded from those who live in the Province.
The order replaces the Development of Tourist Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 and is the result of a review group on tourism set up in 1988. During the three years of its preparation the order was greatly influenced by the comments and suggestions made to the review group as a result of wide consultations with interested individuals and organisations. I understand that there was the widest possible involvement of all interested parties throughout the Province in the compilation of the review and in the preparation of the new legislation.
In merely logistic terms the consultations must have been difficult for the review group. Tourism in Northern Ireland involves a wider spectrum of industry and commercial life in the Northern Ireland economy. There are the hotels, catering, food supplies, transport, the local farming community, local government and the amenities which they provide such as sports and recreation facilities, culture and community interests. All those have an important input into the tourist industry
I support the points made by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. The noble Viscount resides in Northern Ireland and the noble Lord was a Minister for Northern Ireland. Therefore both are aware of the interests involved and of the importance of this legislation.
I wish to raise three issues with the Minister. I have not given him notice and therefore I do not expect a reply tonight. He will understand that before I give my unqualified support to the order I must point out that the Northern Ireland Orders in Council in matters of constitutional procedure are a great handicap to legislation of this kind. The manner in which it has been discussed and debated in this House and in another place has been limited and has impeded the practical way in which the legislation should be implemented. Public debate has been diminished by the fact that there is not an elected Northern Ireland Assembly. There has been a loss in Northern Ireland of public debate and awareness of this important

1255
legislation; the decisions that were taken after debate; the accountability and the necessary commitment to that legislation.
The second point concerns the functions of the district councils in relation to tourism. I shall not go into a lot of detail. I should have thought that the provisions in the order should define the procedural consultative arrangements with district councils which would have been helpful in enabling them to promote positive co-ordination, standards of practice and co-operation. That is desirable in the important new role which district councils are to play in respect of this legislation. That should have been more clearly defined in the order.
Finally, I close on a point which has been brought to my attention by corporate organisations and many other people. The Minister will be well aware of it as it has been the subject of comment by the public and the press. It concerns the resignation of the chief executive, Mr. Eddie Freel, after only a few weeks. I ask the Minister whether he will seek a speedy resolution of that matter and the appointment of a new chief executive.
With those remarks, I strongly report this piece of legislation in the interests of northern Ireland.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships' reception of the order. The views of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about the order-making power are shared by all Members of your Lordships' House and by the Government. It would be acceptable to the Government if we could move towards a better form of procedure. That is being thought about and discussed in another place. Behind all that lies the hope that in future it may be possible to deal differently with these matters within the Province and not necessarily here, in this way. I fully understand the criticisms of the noble Lord.
In his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke also of the attractions of Northern Ireland. Last summer I spent a happy day on the North coast of Northern Ireland seeing all the obvious tourist attractions. I noticed that a large number of people had come from outside Northern Ireland. They were speaking different languages and were there as visitors. That is now being reflected in the statistics.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his words of outrage and support for the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place about the murder of the construction workers. In making that Statement my right honourable friend also delivered words of condemnation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his repetition of that condemnation.
The noble Lord asked me a whole string of questions of which I was given notice. He asked me whether Article 12(1) (d) included caravan parks. Under the tourism order, the board will not regulate caravan parks of themselves but it will regulate caravans in caravan parks or elsewhere, which are let by way of trade or business to provide overnight tourist accommodation. Such caravans are to be a
1256
class of accommodation falling within the category of self-catering establishments in Article 12(1) (d) and the minimum standards for all categories will be set in subordinate legislation to be made under Article 12(5).
The noble Lord asked whether under Article 30 district councils will have power to construct and lay down drinking water mains. He said that should be explicit. As part of the tourist amenity constructed by or for a district council under Article 30 the council may provide piped drinking water to connect to tourist amenity drinking water outlets, to wash hand basins, toilets, drinking fountains, and so on, to the water authority's supply main. That does not mean that a council can become a water supply authority. The council would pay for those water services out of its income from rates. That does not wholly answer the noble Lord's wish that it should be explicit on the face of the Bill, but I hope that my answer will give him confidence that this matter is not overlooked or precluded by the order.
Article 30 contains a definition of premises, but the noble Lord was unable to spot the word in Part IV. The definition of premises is in Article 29. That is not an error. The word "premises" is used in the definition of tourist establishments, which is also defined in Article 29 in order to place beyond any doubt the full scope of what is meant by tourist establishment. It is necessary to define premises as meaning a caravan or any other moveable structure.
The noble Lord asked what functions would be retained by the Department of Economic Development. It will remain responsible for the wider implications of tourism policy and its role in the economic regeneration and legislative functions of Northern Ireland. The department will be the Government's interface with the board on all policy issues and all executive tourism functions previously with the Department of Economic Investment will be vested by the order in the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
The noble Lord asked whether the board will carry out any activities outside the United Kingdom. Since 1948 the board has been empowered to promote Northern Ireland as a tourist destination anywhere in the world without restriction. It has exercised that power continuously since 1948. In 1969 the Great Britain territorial tourist boards were established as well as the British Tourist Authority. Since 1969 the Northern Ireland board, while continuing to do its own marketing overseas, has co-operated with the BTA in marketing Northern Ireland overseas in all areas where the BTA has offices, including those in which the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has offices or representation.
There is no statutory relationship between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and those in Great Britain, a matter to which the noble Lord also referred. However the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the boards for England, Scotland and Wales maintain close contacts and co-operate in tourism matters of mutual benefit.
When a tourist establishment is sold, the board may, after completion of the sale and purchase, attach new conditions to the registration certificate. The

1257
noble Lord was extremely anxious about that matter. I believe that that part of the order has been misunderstood. The purpose of the paragraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred aimed to ensure that an automatic statutory condition attaches to all the inspection certificates when they are issued. The condition which the noble Lord is anxious about requires the proprietor to notify the board immediately if there is a subsequent change of proprietor. It does not require the issue of a new certificate. That is all that paragraph (a) is intended to accomplish. Article 12(b) ensures that in addition to the conditions to notify any change of proprietor, the board may also issue a certificate with such other conditions as the board wishes either at the time of issue or within 14 days of the issue of a new certificate. The conditions attaching to any certificate are not affected by the change in proprietor or alterable because of the change under the provisions in this article.
The noble Lord asked me about the penal rate of interest which it appeared the board would have a right to under Article 11(4). The tourism sector is to have access to the selective financial provisions available to those in the manufacturing and services sector. By that I mean, grants, loans and interest relief which can be received from the IDB or LEDU. The power to levy additional interest is in comparable legislation where selective financial assistance is available to other sectors of the kind to which I have referred. What the noble Lord is anxious about is already an integral part of the loan assistance scheme for tourist projects in Northern Ireland. It has proved a useful device to obtain repayment from borrowers in cases where the only other action would be expensive court proceedings to cover public funds. I assure the noble Lord that it is used in a sensitive and sensible manner against borrowers who are capable of paying their debts but who appear to be disinclined to do so.
I can assure the noble Lord that the board, by the contract which selective financial assistance has provided, has access to the records and accounts of the person to whom the assistance is given—another matter to which the noble Lord referred. There is no statutory need for such access.
The noble Lord asked whether it was fair that the department should have the right to remove a board member without giving a reason prescribed by legislation. The power in the order to appoint and remove members of the board is a re-enactment of the Northern Ireland Act 1948. While it is true that the provision differs from that of the Great Britain Act 1969, it is the fact that it is the form normally used in Northern Ireland and stems from the almost impossible task of seeking to anticipate every eventuality which may necessitate the removal of a member from the board. There is no reason to assume that the power will be exercised in any different manner in Northern Ireland under the order than under the 1948 Act. I assure the noble Lord that it has not given trouble.
The noble Lord asked two other questions. The first was in regard to Article 4 where the board, as a body corporate which it is by statute, does not require a
1258
specific power to collect data and compile statistics and carry out research. That troubled the noble Lord. The board can only function properly if its decisions are made from properly researched information. Therefore, as a body corporate, the power which the noble Lord felt should be explicit on the face of the Bill is implicitly there. Secondly, in Article 14 all establishments which, by way of trade or business, offer or provide overnight accommodation to tourists must be inspected and certificated if they are to operate within the law. That is not different from the present position.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough welcomed the order and mentioned the success which Northern Ireland has had in attracting visitors from the European Community. He specifically asked about what input those from his own county of Fermanagh would have into tourism matters of the future. The order recognises that many organisations and representative groupings, both public and private, have an important contribution to make in tourism development. With the new Ballyconnell Canal, and all the other attractions that exist in Fermanagh, my noble friend was right to say that Fermanagh must have an input. That is why a duty was placed on the board to set up formal consultative arrangements involving public and private sector interests, so that the partners are responsive to each other's needs and all can work together in developing tourism in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked how the board would be assessed. The board will have to produce a corporate plan and, in line with the new tourism strategy, an annual operational plan. Built into both plans will be targets against which the board's progress will be assessed. The board will also produce accounts and an annual report which will be submitted to the Minister and elected representatives. At the end of the day, coming back to an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, there is the right to terminate a member's appointment. However, we are thinking rather differently to that. Perhaps I may say that the board was recently restructured and we are fortunate to have well-qualified people at the present time, and I believe that that will certainly continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, made the point that district councils need to have an input. The position is that all district councils work closely with the board in developing individual marketing plans. The board provides assistance towards such plans. Therefore, the district councils already consult with the board. The provisions should not cause practical difficulties for those councils working with the board in developing an integrated approach to tourism development.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Lyell asked about minimum standards and whether a sharp eye would be kept on the quality of food, which my noble friend enjoyed during his time in Northern Ireland. We are not getting off to a cold start in moving the order, but a sensible adaptation of the existing standards which can gradually be raised as progress in raising quality is made. Food and tourist accommodation will be assessed as part of the certification process.

1259
If there are any questions your Lordships have asked which I have not answered, I shall write to noble Lords. With that reply, I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 4.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 101, line 1, leave out from ("warrant") to end of line 2 and insert ("shall be directed to any constable acting within his police area").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 169 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 170, 171 and 172. These amendments are concerned with a specific aspect of the proposed enforcement of the council tax which has a curious history. Until the introduction of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 it was normal practice under the General Rate Act 1967, and no doubt under earlier legislation, for warrants for non-payment of what was in those days domestic rates—subsequently the poll tax and soon to be the council tax—to be directed to the police. Domestic rates, despite everything that has been said about them, were relatively easy to collect, so there was no specific difficulty in that regard. The number of arrest warrants was small.
Noble Lords who took part in the debate on the Local Government Finance Bill 1988 will recall that we took strong exception to the provision in Schedule 4 that,
"a warrant may be directed to the authority concerned and to such other persons (if any) as the court issuing it thinks fit".
We anticipated, as will be seen, rightly, that the effect would be that it would turn out to be the responsibility of the local authorities, despite their evident incapacity in terms of expertise and resources to do the job, and that the police would not do it.
In the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, paragraph 42(6) confirmed the provision in the Bill. It stated:
"A warrant [issued under paragraph 5] may be executed [anywhere in England and Wales] by any person to whom it is directed, or by any Constable acting within his police area".
Section 125(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 applies to such a warrant.
Unfortunately, we were proved right. Police in many parts of the country have proved unwilling to involve themselves in the collection of the poll tax. Although the Home Office wrote in 1990 to the Justices' Clerks' Society saying that it was the responsibility of police forces to execute warrants directed to them by magistrates' courts, the evidence available to local authority associations is that in many cases the police are declining—for understandable reasons in the light of restrictions on their own manpower and resources—to become involved.
I received a number of letters from police forces which confirm that position. A letter written to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council in July of last year from the West Midlands Police stated:
1260
"I have had further discussions with our two Warrant Officers and with their existing heavy workload would only be able to cope with twelve warrants of this type per month. With the estimated three to four thousand possible cases in the system, twelve per month is not really going to have much of an impact, the situation not helped by the fact that the two Enforcement Officers employed by the Court are not enforcing this type of warrant".
There is another letter, from the Thames Valley Police to the Milton Keynes Borough Council. It states:
"Our Headquarters policy, which we will be implementing, is that:-

(i) We will not accept prisoners prior to appearance in Court …

(ii) We will not be executing any warrants concerning Poll Tax.

(iii) We will not be escorting any prisoners to prison who have been committed by the Courts for poll tax arrears.

(iv) If there is a threat of violence to the bailiffs when effecting an arrest, the Police will attend to prevent such a breach of the peace occurring".

There are many examples of the fact that the police are not willing to be involved in this matter unless they are directly instructed to do so. We think that the enforcement of the law, whether it is enforcement of the poll tax or the council tax, is such an important matter that the police should be directly instructed, as they were in the past, to become available for this purpose. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that some authorities are concerned about the resources available for the execution of arrest warrants. However, under domestic rates and the community charge it has been possible for the courts to direct a committal warrant to the local authority concerned, to the police or to any other person. There is no reason to bring in restrictions for the council tax so that warrants can be directed only to the police. This would not make the procedure more effective. Many authorities use their own enforcement officers or outside firms of bailiffs to handle warrants. At the same time it would place an unreasonable burden on the police to expect them to execute all arrest warrants. It would only lead to the slowing down of this part of the enforcement procedure. I am sure that that is not the desirable end that the noble Lord would wish for his amendments. Authorities should be able to come to sensible arrangements on this matter with their local court and local police force.
As to the proposal to extend jurisdiction to Scotland, I am not aware of any problems in this area. It is a much wider question than enforcement for the council tax. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate that it should be dealt with in the Bill, although in addressing these amendments the noble Lord did not address that particular amendment.
The noble Lord read out letters from police forces when he was addressing the amendment. Perhaps I may say to him that of course this work would not necessarily feature high on the list of priorities when it had to be weighed against other operational demands of police forces. It would be quite wrong for local authorities to pre-empt the priorities of the police force, and pre-empt not just resources but the way in which they arrange their operational duties when there are other solutions at hand.

1261
What is of importance—and it links back to the previous amendment which we have already said we will take away to think about—is to make sure that the other measures that are resorted to by local authorities work well and effectively in the interests of people who are being pursued for non-payment.
In reading from one of the letters the noble Lord said that the police would be more than willing at least to perform their own duties in relation to a law and order matter. Therefore, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was not intending to press the amendment. It is not that kind of amendment. But I am very much concerned by the Minister's response to the issue, although I take her point about some of the effects there might be if the amendment is taken literally. I fully accept that the ideal situation would not be to restrict the direction of warrants to the police, as the amendments propose. I quite see that it would be desirable to have enforceable procedures which included both local authorities and the police.
But there is a twofold problem with that solution, if that indeed is the solution which the Government prefer. The first is that there are not sufficient sanctions on the police to play their part. We have many examples of local authorities, particularly in response to a survey being carried out by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, saying that not only are the police putting this low on their scale of operational priorities—which is to paraphrase what the noble Baroness said—but are saying outright that they are not going to do it.
I quote the following:
"Police now refusing to accept warrants";
"Police have also indicated that they have no intention to physically arrest those people for whom a warrant has been issued without bail";
"We have been informed unofficially that warrants stand very little chance of being acted on".
I suggest to the Minister that even if the amendments are defective in the sense that they are too restrictive, nevertheless something has to be done to bring this matter of lawbreaking higher up in the priorities of the police force and to put greater sanctions on the police to fulfil their duties as imposed on them by the Act and the regulations.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he not agree, first of all, that his amendments restrict the number of measures to which a local authority can resort to enlist the help of other people in these matters? If they can only go to the police, without it being an instruction to the police —and not only an instruction to them but one that would involve pre-empting their priorities—it would not work. Would the noble Lord really go down that avenue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness is, in part at least, knocking at an open door. I have already conceded that it was undesirable for only the police to be concerned. I have already said that I will not press the amendments on that basis. There is no dispute between us on that.
1262
What the Minister is not recognising is that there is a major problem out there in the field. There is a major problem that in parts of the country—it may well be in many parts of the country—the police are refusing to do anything at all. I am not suggesting that Ministers can determine in great detail what the priorities of the police shall be. I am suggesting that we could go a great deal further than we have done in stopping the evident collusion of the police in not enforcing the law. That is what I am asking from the Minister. I am asking her to look again at what can be done to strengthen the instructions to the police to carry out their obligations under the 1988 Act and the 1989 regulations.
Baroness Blatch: I am again grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope it is helpful to say that the Home Office has made it clear that the police are under a duty to execute warrants which are directed to them. What the Home Office cannot do is set down the operational priorities for the chief constable.
I do not know whether it is helpful to the noble Lord, but I shall talk to my colleagues in the Home Office about what more can be done to reinforce the message that when they are directed in this way they are under a duty to respond.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful for that. I would then ask the Minister to write to me about the matter when she has had those discussions with her Home Office colleagues. I have no doubt she will wish to be in contact also with local authority associations.
There is the other side of the coin. The Minister has suggested that there are people working for local authorities qualified to carry out this work, or, indeed, that bailiffs be employed. I do not want to drag her into the very difficult situation which her noble friend Lord Henley found himself in on the discussion of bailiffs earlier this evening, but it is quite clear that the behaviour of bailiffs is such that they are not a reliable body of men and women to carry out this work. They do not behave responsibly; they are not under adequate control; and the criticisms made of them by my noble friend Lady Hollis, by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others are very powerful criticisms to which the noble Lord Henley acknowledged he had to respond. Is he contesting that?
Baroness Blatch: Having sat through the whole of that debate, it is important to say this. It is as though all bailiffs who operate for local authorities somehow or other fall into the category of being bad apples in the barrel. We should like to think that that is not as widespread as has been said this evening. However, my noble friend from the Department of Social Security and I have agreed that there is an issue to be addressed here. We shall give the matter considerable thought between now and Report stage. So it is the issue of bad practice that needs to be addressed. However, I think there was some hint that it was rather more widespread than it necessarily is.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what I said. The noble Lord was expressing dissent. But I said that these were issues to which he will have to respond. I do not think that he will now express dissent with that.
However, I must cast doubt on whether it is appropriate for local authority staff actually to be involved in the arrest and delivery of non-payers of council tax to prison. There is a recent example, which has had a lot of publicity, of Tunbridge Wells local authority staff having to arrest a pensioner for non-payment and to deliver a woman to Holloway prison. Is that the role of local authority officers? I suggest that the opening up of the direction of warrants to local authorities rather than having it a matter for the police, as it was until 1988, has serious difficulties which the Government have not adequately addressed.
It may well be—although I do not think that the Government would have the nerve to plead this in mitigation —that the horrors of the poll tax are so great that the problems that we are seeing now will not be continued under any future tax. Also, it may well be that we are addressing our anxieties to the existing situation under the 1988 Act and things may not be so bad under the council tax. As I say, I do not think that the Ministers will have the nerve to use that argument because they have always defended the principle of the poll tax.
However, something is badly wrong, and any discussion between Ministers in the Department of the Environment and Ministers in the Home Office which is reported to the public, and I hope made available for the purposes of debate at a later stage, will be of great value. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 170 to 172 not moved.]
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 173:
Page 102, line 1, leave out paragraph 11.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the introduction of charging orders as a means of enforcement. The amendment is supported by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation because of its anxiety for disabled people who find it difficult to meet the costs of home ownership as well as care costs and the other costs which will arise from this tax.
This, as I say, is a new method of enforcement. For the community charge it was there for collective community charge, but not as a general mechanism. The matter seems deserving of debate so that we may hear from the Government the factors that will be considered. One of the later sub-paragraphs of the particular paragraph in the schedule refers to the prescription of certain factors to be considered by the courts. We may be told of safeguards that will be imposed, such as the circumstances which the court will be recommended to take into account; the personal circumstances of the debtor; whether it will be required to consider if another person living in the house will be taken into account; and whether a charging order is granted.
1264
In the schedule there are other very stringent methods of enforcement available to local authorities. Those include imprisonment and bankruptcy. Knowing as we all do of the problems of repossession, to add a threat of loss of home ownership is a draconian measure, which is certainly worth spending a moment considering.
I move this amendment as a probing amendment so that we may have an opportunity to hear a little of what is behind the recommendation in the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As the noble Baroness has explained, Amendment No. 173 seeks to remove charging orders as a means of enforcement for the council tax. I shall explain briefly why we thought it appropriate to include charging orders as an enforcement remedy in the Bill.
Charging orders were available as a means of enforcement for domestic rates, and, as the noble Baroness rightly said, for the collective community charge. Because it had no property element, we did not consider it appropriate to the enforcement of the personal community charge. Now we are bringing in the council tax, which is in part a property tax. It seems right that if other remedies have failed this remedy should be available to local authorities for council taxpayers who default. To be more precise, it will be one of a range of remedies available to a local authority, and in some ways it could be regarded as a gentler option than, say, distress or attachment of earnings. Typically, the registration of a charging order would mean that when the property in question was eventually sold, the creditor would receive part of the proceeds in payment of the debt. I must say that I find nothing unreasonable about that idea.
I hope that what I have said is helpful to the noble Baroness, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do, perhaps I may say this. It has to be recognised that a number of local authorities want to use charging orders and from our point of view there is a difficulty with the amendment of the noble Baroness. I am disappointed that in his response the noble Earl did not talk about the dangers that exist with charging orders. After all, the problem with charging orders is that they are likely to be applied for a relatively small debt and to force the sale of a very large asset. That matter has been referred to in our earlier debates this afternoon. If we were to support the Government on this—and I am not saying that we are—we should want to know that there were adequate protections against small debts.
We would also want to be assured that it was not to be a condition precedent to committal. If it were used as a big stick to be waved around virtually regardless, that would seem to us to be extremely dangerous. Charging orders may have their applicability in some areas; but I hope that it is clear that they should be used with enormous care, and that there should be great restrictions on their use. I did not get the impression of that understanding at all from the noble Earl's response.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I can be of a little more help. It is perfectly true that a charging order would enable the local authority to appoint an administrator and force the sale of a property—I take the noble Lord's point—but in most cases that would be a rather draconian sledgehammer to crack a nut.
What typically happens with a charging order is that it is registered and then the local authority waits until such time as the property is sold and receives part or all of the money owing at that time. It is possible to apply for an order for sale but that would be very unusual because the costs involved will usually be disproportionate to the amount of the debt. There must first be a liability order, then an application to the county court for a charging order and then a further application to that court for an order for sale. It is very much a procedure of last resort. One has to give credit to local authorities for choosing the remedy that is most appropriate to a particular case. Attachment of earnings will in most cases be the preferred option.
Baroness Hamwee: I recognise the desirability of giving local authorities a range of methods of enforcement. I am sorry that the noble Earl did not take the opportunity—he may not yet be in a position to do so—to respond to my queries about heading (b) of Schedule 4(11) (4). It refers to the regulations including provision,
"as to the factors to be considered by the court in deciding whether to make a charging order".
I ask the noble Earl to take away the general concerns expressed. Perhaps we can then discuss the matter after the Committee stage.
Earl Howe: This has been a useful debate. Although I do not have specific information to enable me to reply to the noble Baroness, perhaps she will allow me to write to her on that point.
Baroness Hamwee: That would be helpful. I should like to put it on record that there are fears that a charging order is not necessarily a gentler means—that was the term used by the noble Earl. It is a fearful weapon. I dare say that it is the intention that it will be effective. However, I thank the noble Earl for undertaking to provide that further detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 102, line 31, at end insert:
("General Remission
11A. An authority shall have power to reduce or remit the payment of any Council tax on account of the poverty of any person liable to pay it.").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment with a certain history. There used to be a power under the General Rate Act 1967 for a billing authority, or whatever it was called in those days, to remit a payment for reason of the poverty of any person liable to pay it. Those are the words used in the amendment. It seemed to work all right. It did not seem to cause any particular difficulty. It still applies to the non-domestic rate under Section 49 of the Local
1266
Government Finance Act 1988. It is a power that magistrates have after commitment to them, although distraint of goods has to be tried first before the magistrates can go to that extent. It is curious that the billing authority itself should not have the power to make the judgment that it will cost more or substantially more to collect a payment than to remit it on grounds of poverty.
I make it clear that I am not proposing, and the amendment does not propose, that there should be any remission on political grounds. On the contrary, we are saying that the power of local authorities effectively to pursue those who are deliberate or willing non-payers will be strengthened by their ability not to have their time distracted by pursuing small claims from people who are genuinely unable to meet them. I should have thought that those who are in favour of observance of the law and of pursuing lawbreakers, as Ministers claim to be, would be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I rise with some diffidence as I am certainly not well versed in provisions of social security. I do not speak with a full background on the matter. However, I have read the Bill and it seems curious that this rather vague amendment is inserted at this point. I looked in vain for any inkling as to how a council might receive guidance as to what poverty means in this specific context. I see that later in the Marshalled List a whole series of amendments is to be withdrawn. Perhaps the answer would have been in Amendments Nos. 175 to 181.
I listened with great care to what the noble Lord said and I was astonished that he made no reference to council tax benefit. It seems to me that the Bill makes very clear the fact that persons on very low income will not be liable and that they will receive a remission —if that is the appropriate word; indeed, it is the word used in the amendment—from payment. I should have thought that it would be necessary to reconcile the provision with the provisions clearly laid out in Schedule 9 to the Bill.
I looked through the proposed amendments to Schedule 9. Of course, it would be premature to discuss them now, but I shall certainly have problems with them when we come to that stage. For example, the existence of a retirement pension certainly does not relate to poverty. I should be grateful to receive an explanation from the noble Lord as to how the provision before us relates to the provisions already within the Bill under the general heading of low income.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may respond to that specific point before the Minister replies to the amendment. I believe that it would have been helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, had been present in the Chamber when my noble friends and others were talking about very specific cases where the rebate system—or, as the noble Lord chooses to call it, council tax benefits—would not have met the case. I do not think that there is any difficulty whatever in

1267
defining poverty. Indeed, there are plenty of examples in that respect; for example, there are rebate systems all over the place which take account of it.
Moreover, if there is any difficulty, Ministers will assure the noble Lord that there is no inhibition against them providing guidance to local authorities as to what should be taken into account if the amendment before the Committee was accepted and if this part of the Bill was passed. It is quite clear from the noble Lord's intervention that he thinks this is a party-political matter and that we are trying to introduce a provision which would weaken the enforceability of the council tax legislation.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I made no accusations of a party-political nature. I said that the amendment lacked clarity and that it was vague. I should be delighted if both those points could be resolved for me. I repeat, I made no intimations whatever of a party-political nature. Indeed, I think that it is unworthy of the noble Lord to make such a suggestion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad to accept that assurance. I am also glad to acquit the noble Lord of any charge of party-political motivation. Indeed, I am not sure that either the noble Lord or myself should really be seeking to be acquitted of charges of party-political motivation. I am proud of my party-political motivation. I should have thought that the noble Lord would also have been.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord ought not to be!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the noble Lord's problem.
I think that I should draw the Committee's attention to something which I did not mention in my introductory remarks. The amendment is supported by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. They are the people who are specifically responsible for the task of collecting the council tax and other forms of local government finance. The Institute says:
"We would urge that the legislation should include a specific power for local authorities to be able to remit payments of council tax in cases of genuine hardship. This could be so framed to include appropriate safeguards to prevent excessive use of such a power. Local authorities should not have to rely only on a general implied power of write-off. This power is available under non-domestic rates (section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988); it would seem reasonable to allow similar powers for council tax payments".
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I apologise for intervening once again, but the phrase "a specific power" seems to me to be useful. I can see that it may be appropriate to have such a power. However, it seems to me that the demerit of the amendment before the Committee is that it would virtually be an invitation for each different local authority to write its own bill. That is its weakness. It is not a specific power; it is a power of complete generality. Therefore, one could have complete disparities among all the local authorities in the country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no doubt that I could qualify all my amendments by placing at the end of each of them the words:
"The Secretary of State may lay such regulations and orders as he thinks fit to give effect to this part of the Bill".
Obviously one could protect oneself very easily against such an accusation. Of course, we are not doing so. The noble Lord will be well aware that we are making points of political, social and administrative import. If the general argument is accepted, the department, parliamentary counsel or anyone else can insert all the qualifications that are necessary. That has happened to us on many occasions when our arguments have been accepted. I believe that the fundamental distinction must be made—and there is no difficulty about enshrining it in regulations if necessary —that people should not be pursued if it would cost more to collect the tax than would be gained by such pursuance.
In the amendment we say that such a power should apply not to wilful non-payers, but only to those who cannot pay. Given that the Minister accepts the obvious justice of the case put forward in the amendment, I cannot for the life of me think that it is beyond the capacity of Department of the Environment officials or parliamentary counsel to frame specific amendments to give effect to it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: From the impartiality of the Cross-Benches, I should like to say that the political honours are even, because there is great merit in the principle of the amendment, and there is power in the argument that there is nothing specific about it. It is well worth including such a provision in the Bill if it can be hedged around sufficiently to avoid abuse. That is the nub of the matter.
There cannot be much difference between us. It would be agreeable if both sides of the political spectrum could reach some accord, because there clearly is poverty which cannot be spelled out in Schedule 9. I should have thought that it was for those reasons that the provision has been put forward. If that is so—I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, nods his head—I hope that between now and the next stage the parties could get together and agree upon a solution that would not be open to abuse.
Lord Henley: I am interested to know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that this is not a party political amendment. If he says that, no doubt he is correct. I take what he says at face value. My noble friend Lord Renfrew had a point when he said that the amendment lacked clarity and was vague. He went on to make the valid point, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rejected, that it would then be left to the local authorities to decide what was meant by poverty. It would be up to the local authorities, no doubt represented by friends of Members opposite, to make their party political point by establishing that such and such a level of income was below the poverty line, or whatever, and therefore to undermine the provision of benefit. It is true of course that poverty and

1269
hardship have been mentioned in previous statutes, but that was before the creation of the universal welfare state and has little relevance nowadays.
As we know, the council tax proposals provide a number of layers of protection for people on low incomes. The benefit system will ensure that they can claim rebates of up to 100 per cent. of their liability. Clearly, where a 100 per cent. rebate is applicable there is no need for the remission of the charge on the grounds of poverty. The same is true for those on incomes slightly above income support grades.
Having said that, I accept that the noble Lord has a valid point if one removes the word "poverty" from the amendment. In effect, what I suspect he is saying is that the local authority should not have to pursue every sum, however small, at whatever cost. I accept that that is a valid point. We can now get away from party political points that I suspect the noble Lord was trying to make and that the amendment would have allowed for. As I said, it would be wrong for a local authority to have to pursue any individual for outstanding council tax however small the sum.
The Government believe that a local authority would have all the powers needed without a specific provision in the legislation. That view is based upon advice from the Audit Commission. Authorities have provision in their standing orders or financial regulations to enable small amounts to be written off. There is normally a ceiling on the amount, and it is subject to the approval of the chief financial officer or chief executive. For audit purposes, the details of the amount and the reason why the debt is regarded as irrecoverable must be recorded.
For individual sums over the authority's ceiling, the general purposes committee or the equivalent—whatever the local authority wishes to call it—may approve a write-off. The sums would then be written off at the end of the year by the auditor as part of his accounting adjustments, but that would need the approval of the appropriate committee.
Having had our little party political knockabout, I hope that the noble Lord will accept those provisions and that the advice from the Audit Commission will go as far as he feels necessary to deal with the problems he highlighted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the last part of his answer. On the basis of what he said I shall have to think again about the matter and I shall not pursue this amendment.
Nevertheless I believe that I ought for a moment to pursue the issue of poverty and the claim that the Minister made that we have a universal welfare state. I do not think that anyone who travels around our country and sees conditions can be confident of that view. I do not, from this Dispatch Box, put it more strongly than that. Poverty is not all that difficult to define. There are many effective ways of defining it which may not all be consistent with each other but are certainly adequate and necessary for certain areas of the country.
I suggest that any rebate system will only cover the financial situation of an individual or household at the time when the rebate is applied, whereas poverty could
1270
result from past conditions which would not be easily reflected in the rebate. For example, a deserted spouse may well be eligible now for 100 per cent. rebates, but she may still have a council tax bill from the time when her husband was with her. She would have no effective means of paying it off. I suggest that that could properly be described as poverty and it would be outside the rebate system but it would be a justifiable case for a local authority to use its powers which the Minister described.
Similarly, as earlier debates have shown, a student receiving grant and loan could be liable for the council tax although his or her resources would be absolutely inadequate for the purpose of paying off a debt accumulated under the council tax. So there is still a political case to be made for poverty to be taken into account, if only to increase the effectiveness of local authorities in pursuing willing non-payers. That is and always has been an important part of our thinking on the subject.
In the light of what the Minister said about the existing powers of local authorities, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 175 to 183 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Enforcement: Scotland]:
The Earl of Balfourmoved Amendment No. 184:
Page 110, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Earl said: Before the poll tax came into being I do not believe that I would ever have complained about this provision. However, Lothian regional council has behaved so badly in recent years that I am greatly concerned because this clause allows them to do whatever they like. For example, they sent me a letter demanding that I deduct the community charge from someone who had never been in my employment. As it happens, I know a very decent regional councillor who was extremely helpful. But, had the regional councillor and I not been in agreement on this matter, I could have ended up in court under the provisions of this subparagraph. People have been sent demand notices for water when their water is on a private supply. It has been my experience that unless one sends a registered letter to the regional council, one never seems to receive an intelligent reply.
A person who lives within my parish was sent four different community charge notices in as many months. He was given no real explanation for that. I am greatly concerned about the wording of this subparagraph. It appears to me to allow a local authority to do almost whatever it likes. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: This particular amendment would remove the provisions which basically mean that a mistake in a document or a communication does not invalidate the recovery process. Of course we would hope that local authorities would always get it right and do not therefore need this safeguard. It

1271
would, however, be unrealistic to assume that minor typographical and other errors will never occur. Our concern in including this provision in the Bill was to ensure that such minor errors do not provide an excuse for non-payers to delay the recovery process. It would be quite unfair to law-abiding local tax payers if a person could put off paying his council tax simply on account of a minor typing error in one of the documents associated with recovery. The net effect could only be a loss of income and increased costs for the local authority. That, in turn, would mean higher taxes for council tax payers.
However, I fully appreciate my noble friend's concerns that local authorities should not be given carte blanche to commit errors in the recovery process. I am familiar with the case in his own experience which he described so graphically on Second Reading and would certainly never advocate any provision which sanctioned incompetence of the kind he described. We should, however, all note that my noble friend lives under the jurisdiction of a Socialist council.
Given what I have said about the need to allow some minor licence for small errors, I do not think that the deletion of this provision is the right way to ensure that there is no repeat of this kind of problem. That must, I believe, lie in the hands of those charged with overseeing the performance of local authorities; namely, for Scotland, the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland (the Ombudsman), or the Accounts Commission. My noble friend can be assured that I am not in any way condoning error in the recovery process, but on the basis of the explanation that I have provided, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I hope that I shall not end up in court for some misdemeanour as a result of withdrawing this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Precepting and precepted authorities]:
Lord Underhillmoved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: Some Members of the Committee appear to be staggered that I am dealing with this matter. I hope that at the end of the day they will be so pleased with my performance, that they will agree with my assertions. In moving Amendment No. 184A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 184B.
Amendment No. 184A is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 184B. The amendment seeks to add passenger transport authorities in metropolitan areas to the list of precepting authorities. Such a move would enable PTAs to be treated in the same way as metropolitan county police authorities and fire and civil defence authorities. Those authorities are listed in subsection (1) of this clause.
I recall a debate on the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, took part. An amendment put down at that time changed the position of the PTAs from being
1272
precepting authorities to having to raise finance by sending a bill to each of their constituent counties. At the time it was stressed that the changed procedure would affect the position of a PTA in planning transport matters on a county basis. It was stated that, in view of a district council's resources, such an authority could support only those PTA schemes which directly affected its area rather than schemes planned on a county-wide basis. Districts are obliged to pay the PTA levy but the size of the levy is strongly influenced by district authority pressures.
In a consultative document issued before that amendment was put forward it was stated that the aim was to promote accountability. It was said at that time that PTA members collectively do not have any direct responsibility because they are not directly elected to the PTA. Surely the same point arises in connection with the police authorities and the fire and civil defence authorities.
The consultative document also suggested that districts might in particular regard secession from the PTA as desirable. Since the amendment was carried in 1988 and the Bill became law not a single district has attempted to withdraw from its passenger transport authority.
The amendment which I now move was also moved in the Standing Committee of the other place. I have in front of me the report of the Standing Committee for 3rd December 1991, cols. 776 to 782. In moving the amendment in the Standing Committee in the other place, Mr. David Blunkett said that the amendment would separate out passenger transport authorities for the purposes of the standard spending assessment. At present, public transport is part of a block of other services including libraries and refuse collection. Those are completely different from public transport. We have the position that there is no separate standard spending assessment for public transport. It is left to the district councils, which have other funding priorities, to determine through their SSA the overall proposals of the public transport authority. The attitude of the districts is influenced by the fact that the PTA levy counts towards each district's expenditure for charge-capping procedures. That has a considerable effect on PTA schemes at a time when there is widespread general agreement that investment in public transport must be increased.
The amendment would establish a separate SSA for public transport. As I have said, at present public transport is included in a block of services. In view of the pressure on the finances of many authorities, decisions would have to be taken on whether to cut expenditure on PTA schemes such as those upon grants under Section 20 to assist essential local rail services, or to cut other services in the block. The situation has arisen because of the change from precepting to levying initiated by the Government in the 1988 amendments.
When they abolished the metropolitan counties the Government recognised that there was a need for transport planning on a county basis. They therefore established the PTAs. There is considerable evidence

1273
of the effect of that change, some of which is set out in the report of the Standing Committee in the other place.
Mr. Michael Portillo, the local government Minister, rejected the amendment but in no way answered the anxieties of the PTAs about the effect of the present absence of a precepting procedure. In fact on 3rd December, at col. 781, Mr. Portillo stated:
"The amendment proposes that we return to the system whereby the passenger transport authorities precept on the metropolitan districts. That would cause problems. It was difficult to establish a standard spending assessment for the PTAs".
He also said:
"Local authorities have to make difficult choices: if they choose to spend above their standard spending assessment, they must face the possibility of capping".
He concluded with a very important admission:
"The amendment would return to a precepting status for PTAs. The point is being made vigorously to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, and he is considering the representations. I remain to be convinced on the issue, and I must therefore urge that the amendment be rejected".
That was a statement by Mr. Portillo on 3rd December.
It so happens that, just a month before, another transport Minister, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, in a letter dated 5th November 1991 to the Tyne and Wear PTA, wrote:
"We are looking at the possibility of a change in the present arrangements. If the PTAs became precepting bodies the cost of their services would not count as part of the district council budgets for charge-capping decisions. But, in order to maintain the present level of protection for chargepayers, the PTAs would have to be subject to central government controls over their precepts".
I have reason to believe that there is a difference of opinion between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment on this issue. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will explain exactly the extent of that difference. What has happened to the consideration that Mr. Portillo said was being given by his honourable friend? Has any decision been taken? Is it correct that the Government may be prepared to consider an amendment allowing the Secretary of State by order to designate additional precepting authorities? That could have an advantage. For example, it would allow the SSA implications of the re-establishment of the PTAs as precepting authorities to be the subject of negotiations between central and local government. I hope that we shall receive some comment on that in the light of the important statement by Mr. Portillo and the letter from Mr. McLoughlin.
An amendment similar to those put forward at standing committee in another place was tabled for Report stage but was not selected for debate. Fortunately in this Chamber there is no guillotine or selection of amendments. Therefore we are at perfect liberty to have this debate tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable reply, based first on the Government's consultation document and secondly on the points of Mr. Portillo and Mr. McLoughlin that I raised. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: I rise warmly to support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I was once asked by Lord Elwyn-Jones to move from my seat because I was inaudible. I hope that I can be heard now. It is a
1274
pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. We fought this issue in 1988 and I am afraid that the changes have not been terribly satisfactory. However, I must restrain my words and stick closely to my brief. I shall not take very long.
Arising out of the noble Lord's speech are three key points. There is a vital countrywide service being funded on the basis of lowest common denominator spending controls. Curiously, in those metropolitan areas—I do not have my notebook with me and therefore cannot quote chapter and verse—it is Wigan which is suffering very much more than Oldham. That is just one area. Transferring the precept makes government-supported projects such as light railways difficult to implement. Light rail projects have a great future. With the way that matters work at the moment that is rather difficult. Therefore, we need primary legislation but not a great deal. That is perfectly workable in the spirit of the Bill. If the Government are not prepared to accept change now will they consider introducing an order-making power to make the Secretary of State add to the list of precepting authorities in this Chamber?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I shall quote my honourable friend Mr. Portillo, giving chapter and verse. At Committee stage in the other place in respect of an identical amendment, he said:
"The amendment would return to a precepting status for PTAs. That point is being made vigorously to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, and he is considering the representations".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/91; col. 781.]
Therefore, an order-making power would enable the outcome of the deliberations of my honourable friend, Mr. Freeman, to be implemented early. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will answer that point.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: The amendment would have the effect of establishing metropolitan passenger transport authorities as major precepting authorities. It would re-establish the position prevailing before the PTAs were established as levying bodies in 1990–91 under Section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. There were sound reasons for making that change. Previously the PTAs precepted upon the metropolitan districts. They received rate support grant in their own right. But as I am sure many Members of the Committee will recall, they were subject to automatic rate capping in all but the final year of their existence as precepting authorities.
We were also concerned that the PTAs in their previous role were insufficiently accountable for their spending decisions both to the metropolitan boroughs and, as importantly, to the electorate. The establishment of PTAs as bodies levying upon the metropolitan districts was intended to strengthen their accountability. PTAs' expenditure now forms part of the districts' budgets, and district councillors are much more directly responsible for these spending decisions as part of their wider responsibilities, and far more accountable to their electorates.
That is a change for the better. We listen to the views expressed to us and we shall continue to do so. Requests for a return to precepting status for the

1275
PTAs have been made to my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport and he is carefully considering these representations. There is no difference of opinion between my honourable friends Mr. McLoughlin and Mr. Portillo. The argument centres on accountability and budgetary control. It must be right that a PTA should be accountable, albeit at one remove, to the local electorate, and that the voters' elected local representatives should have as much control as possible over spending decisions.
The PTA levy is of course taken account of in the SSA which would be reduced if the PTA became a precepting authority and had an SSA of its own. In turn that SSA would be liable to capping. Similar amendments to these were proposed and the issues debated at Committee stage in another place. As I have explained, and as my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has previously explained in another place, there were sound reasons for turning PTAs into levying bodies. We still remain to be convinced of a need for a return to precepting status. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: Before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, replies I must return to the matter. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Howe listened to all the arguments but nevertheless the procedure has not been a success. I realise that perhaps one may not wish to return to the original situation but this case is an exception. One could well return to the original situation without losing face. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will reply soon but I believe that all options should be kept open. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who has not been in his seat, vigorously supported me. He is a man of great experience and he hated the situation that existed in 1988.
Earl Howe: I should have said that I was grateful to my noble friend for his suggestions. The Government do not have a closed mind on the return to the precepting status. We are alive to the views expressed. However, at this stage and for the purposes of this Bill we are not convinced that it is the road we wish to go down.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving the reasons why the amendment cannot be accepted. But naturally I do not agree with him. Indeed, having listened to the noble Earl I can recall the 1988 debate. He used some of the same phrases and sentences that were used then. I do not criticise him for doing so; he would otherwise have accepted my amendment. The same argument was put forward in justifying the provision in the 1988 Act.
The noble Earl said that the Government do not have a closed mind and that they are still looking at the matter. I hope that means that the Minister is seriously considering the proposals that have been put to him and that we may hear that there is to be a change. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggested wisely that the Minister should be given the power to
1276
add to the number of precepting authorities. Otherwise we might have to wait a long time before any decision by the Government is put into effect.
From the beginning the Government were doubtful about the abolition of the precepting authorities. They are now considering representations made to them. I have quoted the letter from Mr. McLoughlin and the noble Earl has agreed that the matter is being considered. I hope that we shall hear of a decision soon, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184B not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Authorities subject to designation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 185:
Page 37, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) In this Chapter any powers given to the Secretary of State to designate an authority shall not apply if that authority has complied with section 32 above or in the case of a major precepting authority section 43 above.").
The noble Lord said: With Clause 53 and Amendment No. 185 we come to the major issue of capping. We referred to the matter on Second Reading and at various times during our debates. I wish to make absolutely clear at the outset our view of capping and of the Government's proposals. It is that, except in wholly exceptional circumstances of misappropriation or virtual law-breaking, local authorities should have control over their budgets. We believe that the proper role of central government with regard to local authority budgets is to use the element of government grant not only to recognise the needs and resources of local authorities, and therefore to supplement them appropriately, but, if necessary and desirable, to use that grant in order to encourage levels of expenditure which central government believe to be appropriate. However, we are not prepared to accept either in its present form or in its recent form the use of capping in this way—originally the occasional habit and now the regular habit of this Government.
In fact, we agree with The Times in its leader of 14th June last year which described capping as:
"an offence against local democracy far more outrageous than anything M Delors is proposing for monetary and political union".
Indeed, we agree with the present Secretary of State when he said on first assuming office in July 1979:
"We will sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. Local councils are directly elected. They are answerable to their electorate. They do not need, they do not want, the fussy supervision of detail that now exists".
If only that were the position of the Government and his department today. That is as far from current practice as were the statements of Mrs. Thatcher in quoting St. Francis of Assisi when she first took office in 1979 from the other policies and practices of the Government today.
Capping is an offence against local democracy. It has grown up as a practice for dealing with exceptional circumstances, dealing with what Ministers called, as recently as 1990, exceptional

1277
needs. The present Secretary of State, before he resumed his office, wrote on 10th May 1990 describing universal capping as:
"an act of centralised power outside our experience. On those grounds alone, it should be resisted".
What are the Government's arguments in favour of capping and what is the strength of those arguments? First, they claim that local authorities would take advantage of changes in local government taxation in order deliberately to increase their charges. That shows very little understanding of the pressures on local authorities from their electorate. It also shows little understanding of the fact that in practice, despite the enormous increases in costs caused by the poll tax when it was first introduced and despite the concurrent increase in local authority responsibility —for example, under social security legislation, local management of schools and so on—the real increase in local authority expenditure in 1990 was only 2.4 per cent. which compares extremely favourably with central government expenditure.
Secondly, the Government argue that by capping they are protecting the poll tax payer. That was described recently by Ministers as being the appalling behaviour of a dozen or so local authorities. Even more recently it was described as a reserve power to be used against extreme cases. It is not being used in that way but it is being used as a political weapon. If one looks at the top three poll tax charges for the current year, the top three are Hackney—a Labour council —but also Elmbridge, and Windsor and Maidenhead which are not Labour councils. None of those three councils have been capped although their poll tax is between £450 and £500 per head.
At the same time local authorities are being capped even though their poll tax is very much lower at £250 to £300 per head. That is an irrational reaction to something which Ministers see as a political threat but which they cannot plausibly argue is a national threat.
The third argument which Ministers use has always been that central government should have control over the national economy and over the part played by local government in the total public expenditure. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Desai I shall refrain from entering into a theoretical argument on that subject although I am deeply sceptical about some of the definitions of public expenditure used by the Treasury. However, the lie is given to that argument simply by the fact that the Government are now abolishing even the de minimis rules which provide that councils with budgets below £15 million should be exempt from council tax capping.
The capping procedure has no economic or social justification; it has the purely political objective of humiliating local government, and particularly those parts, whether Conservative or Labour controlled, which show signs of independence from the wishes of Ministers.
Let me not hear talk from Ministers of excess expenditure. Excess expenditure, as defined by them, is excess over their own arbitrary judgments and the judgments of their departments about what an individual local authority should spend. It should by now be obvious that the views of the Department of
1278
the Environment and the Treasury of what local government as a whole should spend should be treated with respect and concern, although not always with total belief. What cannot be treated with respect and concern is the view of central government about what each individual local authority should be spending. That is based on false reasoning, false arguments and in many cases—following the intervention of Ministers—political prejudice.
The amendment provides that any of the powers given to the Secretary of State to designate authority from the point of view of capping shall not apply if the authority has complied with Clause 32, in the case of a billing authority, or Clause 43, in the case of a major precepting authority. In other words, if an authority has set its budget properly and according to the law then it should be proper for the authority to levy that council tax. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Lord quoted St. Francis of Assisi, albeit at second hand. I should have thought he would do better to quote Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss, who said:
"Everything is for the best in this best of possible worlds".
Certainly the world the noble Lord seems to inhabit is not the world which can sometimes be observed.
I waited for a long time through the noble Lord's speech to see whether he would at last, as indeed he did, use the words "excess" or "excessive" which are the nub of the clause. Chapter V, the provision which he seeks to amend, goes on to refer to designation:
"As regards a financial year the Secretary of State may designate an authority if in his opinion—
(a) the amount calculated by it as its budget requirement for the year is excessive".
The amendment incorporates the innocuous phrase,
"shall not apply if that authority has complied with section 32 above".
However, Clause 32 simply requires the authority to make a calculation. It does not give any indication as to the merits of the calculation. It simply has to go through the formulation of calculating R minus P over T, which was discussed at some length yesterday. "R" of course is any budget which the authority chooses for itself.
Perhaps I was wrong in my initial fear that it was a wrecking amendment. I do not now regard it as such. The noble Lord made clear that it is his intention that local authorities should have unbridled licence to charge whatever they may wish to charge in their budgets and that will no doubt be reflected in the council tax.
It is well documented that some local authorities have expended large sums and imposed on the ratepayers, poll tax payers or the council tax payers —whichever regime is in operation—considerable burdens. I should have thought it appropriate for the noble Lord to recognise that not only is that possible but it has happened. It is therefore necessary to consider whether some means should be found for restricting unbridled expenditure.
What makes me uneasy in the speech of the noble Lord is that he gives no recognition to the possibility of profligacy and simply seeks to remove from the

1279
Secretary of State any power whatever of acting or reacting when the expenditure is clearly excessive. It therefore seems to me to be an inappropriate amendment.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment is quite transparently intended to destroy capping completely by exempting every authority that carried out its budget calculation properly in accordance with either Clause 32 or Clause 43.
I should like to thank my noble friend for his excellent intervention. Of course he is quite deliberately refusing to make the distinction, but Clauses 32 and 43 are about methodology, and this ignores any view that the Secretary of State may have about what a local authority needs to spend to provide its services.
I should like to pose a straight question to the noble Lord. Perhaps when he replies to the amendment he would care to answer it. Two weeks ago the Sheffield Star of 15th January 1992 said it was understood that the local Labour council hoped that the general election, which must be before June, would overtake events and that the Tories would be turfed out of power. It said that they admitted that they intended to prepare and set an illegal budget, and the hope was that so much time would pass that the Tories would not have time to go through all the necessary procedures if an illegal budget was set following confidential talks with Mr. Kinnock, whom they expected to allow the illegal budget to be legal should he come to power following the election.
I just wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would approve. If he does not want to accept that article perhaps I can pose the hypothesis that if one of the councils subject to a cap decides to set a budget well above the cap and totally ignores the Secretary of State, and decides to proceed to the barricades on that issue, would the noble Lord, if he ever had the power to do so, remit that power and allow the local authority to spend at any level that it chose?
Chapter V is intended to carry forward into the new council tax system the existing provisions that have worked very effectively under the community charge. Our aims are to protect council tax payers from excessive spending or excessive increases in spending by any authority and to ensure that all authorities budget sensibly and play their part in meeting the Government's economic objectives. No authority can be exempt from the need for expenditure restraint and value for money in delivering public services.
In particular, we need to make sure that the very substantial level of extra funds that we are providing are not used in future years merely to boost spending and hence lead to increases in the level of taxation both during the transition to the council tax and thereafter once it is established.
In short, capping is not about acting when authorities in some way fail in their statutory budgeting duties. I recognise that the Opposition have sometimes seen capping in this light, as when the honourable Member for Dagenham explained recently, during the Second Reading debate on what is
1280
now the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act, that he envisaged a reserve power would always be available in extreme cases of illegality or fraud. That is incorrect. We now know what the honourable Member for Dagenham thinks, as he said recently that he opposed the principle of capping and did not propose in any circumstances to cap local authorities. Those are wholly inconsistent statements.
Unlike the Opposition, we recognise our responsibilities both to local and national taxpayers, and hence in the council tax regime we are determined to provide effective capping powers.
Members of the Committee opposite mentioned accountability. Local accountability is indeed a very important principle. It is fundamental to any system of local government finance. Local authorities are, and will be, accountable through the ballot box for their spending decisions. This Bill in fact contains provisions to assist electors in identifying responsibility for expenditure decisions by distinguishing the separate taxes set by authorities in each main tier. The tax that a household pays will thus, for example, be seen clearly to be the sum of the county council's tax and the district council's tax.
However, experience with the community charge has shown that regrettably we cannot rely on sharpened accountability alone to restrain local authority spending. The noble Lord's amendment would leave council tax payers defenceless against extravagant authorities. It would allow authorities to undermine the Government's broad or economic objectives in controlling public expenditure, inflation and the level of local taxation.
I do not know how the noble Lord can sit there and say that local authorities can be trusted with absolutely no constraint whatever on their spending by Parliament. He said that he hoped that I would not cite any examples. One only has to look across the country; the examples are legion. I have pages and pages of evidence of why it is that these measures are required. It is late at night and I do not intend to use them all, but I can draw on them if needed.
This is an essential power for the Secretary of State. I believe it would have to be a power for the Secretary of State even under the party of the noble Lord opposite. It would only be a matter of time before we were back to the stage where we would hear a re-run of the phrase, "The party's over". The party is over, and I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The bridle described by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is regarded by many of us not as a bridle but as a stranglehold —an unbridled licence to charge. The other way of looking at that is a constraint on the licence to provide a service. That is the problem for local authorities.
We have heard the Minister's comments about accountability. I do not know whether her examples included details of how local authorities, subjected to these unconstrained spending regimes, may have voted when they had the opportunity to test their policies on their own electors. That, after all, is what it is all about. It is not just about trusting local authorities; it is about trusting local electors.

1281
I have a grave fear about what this is doing to local democracy, and not just in the realms of accountability. The centralisation that we see now is such a deterrent to good candidates to stand that democracy is seriously threatened as a result of that. Every party knows the difficulty there is in persuading people to do a job which is not the job that they would like to do. They have so little flexibility and so little local discretion. The number of statutory obligations that there are now means that there is very little room for local discretion. The job will not much longer be felt to be one which is considered at all worthwhile and worth the enormous effort that has to be made by local councillors. That in itself is a huge threat to local democracy. It will be of no surprise to anyone that we support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may I pose a straight question to her. Is the noble Baroness also saying that she would advocate no limits whatever on local authority spending?
Lord Strathclyde: And local income tax.
Baroness Hamwee: We would not start from here, would we?
Noble Lords: Answer!
Baroness Hamwee: I think I have made my position entirely clear. We would leave local authorities to take their own decisions but local authorities would not be in a regime that is set by the Government that we have now.
Baroness Blatch: With respect, that was not an answer to the question. I asked the noble Baroness whether she would support no limits whatever on local authority spending. In other words, would it be for local authorities entirely, within their gift, to determine their own level of spending without any limit whatever set by Parliament?
Baroness Hamwee: I thought I was giving a helpful answer by going along in the direction that the Minister feels she is tempting us but where we are actually ahead of her.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on the idea of a local authority having control over its own budget, I was reminded of one of my senior colleagues who once referred to a proposal for reform of the syllabus, saying:
"This proposal originates with the teachers of the subject, which I regard as a most improper manner".
The noble Baroness asked the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, a question. She asked whether he could really sit there and say that local authorities could be trusted to set their own budgets. I shall ask the noble Baroness another question. Can she really sit there and say that the Secretary of State can be trusted to set someone else's budget? Secretaries of State ought not to be unduly trusted. They find it leads them into temptation.
1282
When the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, used the word "excessive", he quoted obviously from the statute:
"in his opinion … is excessive".
But the Secretary of State's opinion is not the ultimate and last word on everything outside his department. I have had from the very beginning of capping a sense that this is a major constitutional impropriety. Those who listened to our debates on the Monday before last may appreciate that I feel that this tendency of a Secretary of State's power to spread into areas where it does not belong is a constitutional impropriety which goes on in a great many contexts. The gentleman in Whitehall does not necessarily know best. He does not know what is going on in every local authority.
I will accept what the noble Baroness said when last we discussed this subject—and she may say it again —that the Secretary of State has a right to limit the amount of his own money that goes into a local authority. What I cannot see in a democratically elected local authority is why the Secretary of State has the right to restrain the amount that is raised from local authority taxpayers. The noble Baroness talked about protecting council taxpayers. We are grown up. We live in a democracy. We do not really need the nanny state to protect us.
I suspect that some of the trouble here arises from the fact that since the other two parties most mistakenly have chosen to be class-based, there are certain areas where they accept that they will never have any chance of winning an election. That does not apply to us. We are capable of winning one in any area, from Wear Valley to Richmond. That is the proper aim. One gets the local authority voted out of office. I have always suspected that all the spite and spleen that go into the process of capping are simply frustration that they can never get the authority voted out. I can understand that kind of frustration but one should not give way to it in waving around big stick legislation.
I also think that the noble Baroness should be very wary of developing the argument about the need to control spending. It proves too much. It is not only public spending that is inflationary. Spending is inflationary, whether public or private. If from the need to control the economy the Government are claiming the right to control local authority spending, precisely the same constitutional argument would allow them to constrain the spending of a private individual. I have no intention of accepting a situation where the Secretary of State comes along when I have been buying my wife a Christmas present and says, "Your spending is excessive. It must be capped". The constitutional argument for the one is just the same as for the other. It is improper in both cases.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl asked whether I could sit here and approve of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State setting budgets for local authorities. My right honourable friend does not set budgets for local authorities; nor does he have the power to set budgets for local authorities. My right honourable friend is concerned with overall limits within which local authorities must set their budgets.

1283
Perhaps I may pose a question to the noble Earl. If the aggregate spending of all local authorities were to be unlimited and the sky was the limit—I have to deduce that from what both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have said—is the noble Earl saying that that would have no impact whatever on the national economy?
Earl Russell: It has exactly the same kind of impact on the national economy as private spending. I trust that the noble Baroness is not claiming power to control that. I simply do not see why she has so much difficulty with the concept of a local authority controlling its own budget. I accept that what the Secretary of State is controlling is spending limits, but I cannot understand why the noble Baroness trusts him to do that. He is not competent. He does not know the facts. What is more, I cannot think of any spending limit that the Secretary of State has ever got right. His record does not encourage me to trust him. I did not say that the sky was the limit; I said that what is acceptable to the voters is the limit. Local authorities are accountable to voters. They are the people who ought to have the final say on the matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have been listening with some degree of amusement to the debate. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that she ought not to propose hypothetical questions to the parties opposite about what they would do if they were in Government, which I suppose is mildly unlikely in one case and totally unlikely in the other. She should perhaps look back a little to the time when they were in Government; that is, both individually and collectively in the days of the Lib-Lab pact.
I cannot speak from memory for the Department of the Environment, but I certainly recall that when Conservative Ministers came into possession of the Scottish Office, if I may put it that way, they did not need to enact new legislation in order to control local authority spending. In fact, they used the legislation which had been put through by the party or parties opposite—indeed, I cannot quite recall whether the legislation was there before the Lib-Lab pact started or whether it was put forward afterwards—and no less a person than Bruce Millan (who is now a European Commissioner and busy attempting to cap this country as regards its donation, if one can call it that, or its contribution from the European Community) used the legislation on a number of occasions in order to control the spending of Scottish local authorities.
I am pretty sure that the legislation was not just in position for Scotland and that it also applied in England. But I stand to be advised on the matter. However, I simply make the point that this interesting debate is a little less credible by virtue of the fact that one can recall the legislation which was in place when we took power in 1979, and which was put into that position by the party or parties opposite who were well aware of the need for central government to control excessive local government expenditure.
Baroness O'Cathain: Is it not true that the great majority of local authority money actually comes
1284
from central government? There is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I know that that is an old cliché; but, quite seriously, if there was no capping it would be ridiculous. One would just go to central government and demand more and more money from income tax.
Baroness Hamwee: Does the noble Baroness agree that it is the taxpayer who is paying the piper?
Baroness O'Cathain: Yes. I should prefer to see central government controlling where taxpayers' money goes, rather than leaving it to local authority control.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The debate is becoming more and more unreal as noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness take part in it. I very much enjoyed the knock-about act of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. In fact, it gave me a totally different view of the University of Cambridge. It now strikes me as being a good deal more interesting than I had thought. The noble Lord accused me of being Panglossian in Voltaire's terms. I put it to him that his use of the word "excessive" falls within the definition of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty who said: "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less."
As the noble Lord said, the question is: who is to be master? That is the crux of the matter. The Secretary of State chooses to use the word "excessive" to mean anything that he wishes. He will corrupt the English language in order to give credence to that definition or, what is worse, that lack of definition.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Is the noble Lord so complacent that he feels that by his own definition he can thereby demolish excess?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that I need take any view about the expenditure of individual authorities, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, or the Secretary of State about whom we are talking. The point is that local people have the right to decide about the proper use of their money. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I should say that I made it clear in my opening remarks that I always thought it was proper for the Secretary of State to use central government grant to local authorities in such a way as to encourage the kind of expenditure he wants and to discourage the kind of expenditure that he does not want.
It has always seemed proper that the Secretary of State should use grant to lean on local authorities. However, that is a very different matter from saying that the total expenditure of local authorities, including the money that they raise directly from taxpayers in their areas, should be subject to the whim —and it is no more than that—of the Secretary of State. That is the fundamental difference between us.
Our position has been entirely consistent throughout. I can say that without any fear of contradiction. I made it clear in my opening remarks that the only exceptions we would accept to our determination to resist capping were the cases of fraud and illegality to which my honourable friend Mr. Bryan Gould

1285
referred last summer. That is still our position. That does not necessarily mean that the powers would have to be exercised through capping legislation. There are other ways of dealing with fraud and illegality in local authority budgets, not least the concept of the fiduciary duty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked what seemed to me to be an unreal question about Sheffield, based upon an hysterical article which she chose to quote. I shall do my best to answer the question, but it is difficult to answer allegations which have no basis in law or reality. Sheffield has not set an illegal budget. If Sheffield were to set a budget which the Secretary of State, judging by rules which he has not yet set, declared to be excessive, he would be legally entitled to cap it, and there is nothing we could do about it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is right. I was referring to the article which talked about a possible illegal budget. The noble Lord is right, it is open to Sheffield to set a budget at whatever level it wishes. It will be interesting to see the noble Lord's reaction if it does so. The story goes that Sheffield is likely to set a budget some £30 million to £40 million above SSA. If it does that, the budget will not be illegal, but it will clearly be an attempt to take on the Government in the vain belief that there may be a Labour government. Whatever the amount of SSA is, the sum mentioned is considerably above the SSA. I am reading from the newspaper article. I am sorry, I should have said that it will be considerably above the cap that has so far been set. If Sheffield does that, merely to take on the Government in the vain belief that should the Labour Party come to power it will be a permitted level of spending, I wonder what the noble Lord's reaction will be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have come quite a long way from the Minister's original charge. She has now agreed that Sheffield has not set a budget, let alone an illegal budget. She is now suggesting that Sheffield might set a budget which is above SSA. Hundreds of local authorities—
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, perhaps the Minister will let me finish my sentence. I am saying that many local authorities will set budgets above SSA and many local authorities will set budgets above the level which the Secretary of State considers reasonable. They will include Conservative- and Labour-controlled councils. Many councils will find themselves setting budgets which will lay them open to the charge of capping. They will not be illegal budgets. They will merely be budgets which fall within the power of designation of the Secretary of State.
1286
The Minister should not quote newspaper articles in the naive way that she did, with the intention—as I see it—of accusing the Labour Party or a Labour-controlled council of illegal motivations or actions, because she has now been forced to agree that that is not the case.
The Minister referred to the assumption, which she claims is made by Sheffield City Council, that a Labour government will let them off the hook. She has said nothing to show that Sheffield City Council thinks that. She has done nothing more than quote from a totally unreliable and inaccurate newspaper article. All I will say to her on that point is that, when we come to correct the errors in local government finance, we shall remove capping. Until, by law, we have changed the rules, the rules, as imposed by law, will stand and will not be changed. I believe that is the assurance that the Minister wants. I have no difficulty in giving her that assurance.
As I said, our position has been entirely consistent throughout. We believe that it is right and proper for central government to be concerned about the proper use of their own grant to local authorities. It is proper for them to express that by variations in the amount of grant given to local authorities. It is even proper for central government to lean on local authorities in order to encourage them to do things they wish them to do and discourage them from doing things they would not wish them to do. What is quite improper is for them to take control, on an individual council-by-council basis, of the expenditure of local authorities. For every example the Minister can quote, I can quote many more. She quoted Sheffield; Elmbridge, a Conservative council, has ruined its local inhabitants by a grossly excessive new civic centre. Its expenditure is way above the standard spending assessment: it is the second highest in the country, but the council has not been capped. Let us see whether the Government pursue this matter.
Our view is one view, the Government's view is now Mark 3. Ten years ago they were saying that it should be left to local authorities; two years, or even less, ago they were saying that capping was required only in exceptional circumstances. They are now saying that capping is a way of life. That is a measure not only of the intellectual inconsistency of the Government's approach, it is a measure of the complete bankruptcy of their political approach to the difficult and complex issue of local authority finance.
It is only the hour of the night that persuades me that it would not be desirable to take the opinion of the Committee on the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 186:
Page 37, line 18, at end insert:
("(2A) For the purposes of this Chapter the budget requirement of an authority does not include any expenditure which an authority estimates that it will incur in the making of grants to voluntary organisations under sections 137 and 142 of the Local Government Act 1972, sections 33 and 38 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, sections 45 and 65 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, and section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.
(2B) In this section "voluntary organisation" means any body the activities of which are carried out other than for profit but does not include any public or local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: We have had, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, something of a knockabout on the previous amendment, although I accept that the sentiments that underlay the knockabout were firmly held on all sides.
The amendment seeks to take voluntary organisations out of the capping provisions. I ask the Committee to think about the serious problems of voluntary organisations and perhaps we can shed the inevitable political prejudices that surround the issue. I am talking now about the voluntary and charitable organisations and not a matter of unbridled local authority spending or however one wishes to refer to it.
It is undoubtedly the case that voluntary organisations have been major victims of rate capping. Almost £30 million of local authority funding was lost in 1991–92, primarily in London and the other metropolitan areas, where capping was most severely felt. The NCVO forecasts that £42.4 million will be cut in the forthcoming financial year. These are enormous sums and very important to the voluntary organisations, which require them in order to survive and provide their services. Those services supplement and complement local authority services. We on these Benches do not for one minute suggest that local authorities should run the world, any more than that central government should run the world. I am sure we all agree that the work done by the voluntary organisations is extremely valuable.
Those organisations rely very much on local authorities; they are the channel for much of their funding. The continued use of capping will inevitably lead to a further squeeze on local authority discretion. As I said in the last debate—if we can call it that—it is the discretionary element which is proving the most difficult in local authority decisions. Many local authorities face pressure in meeting their statutory obligations and, sadly, they are realising that it would be possible to cut out spending on voluntary organisations even though they do not wish to do so. Many Members of this Committee would wish to speak in support of voluntary organisations but because of the lateness of the hour they cannot be present. I accept that those Members might not take precisely the line I have taken. I hope the Government will give careful consideration to the effect of the Bill's provisions on voluntary bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I wish to speak briefly in support of this amendment. It is difficult to overestimate the number of voluntary agencies which feel affected by the
1288
present situation. However, the Government have placed tremendous emphasis on the role of voluntary organisations in society and have frequently said they believe voluntary organisations should take on more responsibility for social provision. Furthermore, it is often the case that the kind of activity voluntary bodies are engaged in is, I should have thought, dear to the Government's philosophy, as those organisations encourage the principle of self-help and encourage people to provide for their own needs. The Government have stressed the importance of that approach. Therefore it comes hard to discover that essential support for voluntary organisations is being cut back as a knock-on effect of rate capping.
Many Members of this Committee who feel strongly about this issue are not present due to the lateness of the hour. The late hour also means that I shall not elaborate on the remarks I have already made. However, I hope the Government appreciate that this matter is of importance to a great many people who are working frantically hard to try to meet acute social need.
Lord Henley: I am sorry that some Members of the Committee who wished to support the amendment of the noble Baroness were not able to be present. I accept that this amendment is well intentioned but I believe it is totally and utterly misconceived. It would, at one fell swoop, demolish the principle that capping bites on the whole of an authority's budget and does not seek to discriminate between its various components. It would be quite wrong for the Government to single out any particular category of expenditure on the grounds that it was in some way more worthy of support than any other service. Such judgments are for each individual authority to make.
In capping we are concerned solely with whether the overall budget set by the authority is excessive or represents an excessive increase over that set for the previous year. Our objections to specific disregards of the kind suggested by the amendment, however, go wider than this. Practical difficulties would arise almost at once. I am sure no one would consider it unduly cynical of me to anticipate that some authorities would seek to exploit any loophole in the capping regime to allow themselves greater expenditure. To put it mildly, there would be considerable debate over the precise definition of a voluntary organisation for these purposes. There would be an opportunity for some local authorities to extend support in to some questionable areas. I suspect that certain local authorities would be only too pleased to have an opportunity to do that.
There is a further serious difficulty with the approach envisaged in the amendments. The services of voluntary organisations are of largely local importance. Authorities are best placed to know how these services mesh in with their own services and how value for money can best be pursued in each case. In some areas local authorities work closely with the voluntary sector to provide services; in others the services are provided direct by the authority. In either case it is for the local authority to decide on the appropriate level of support for the services concerned, regardless of whether the service is

1289
provided by a voluntary body or by the authority itself. But to distinguish those cases in which a voluntary body acts as the provider in the manner suggested by the amendment would, I fear, disadvantage those authorities which have chosen to make their arrangements in a different way, as they would have to find support for those services from within the budget constrained by the capping regime. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness, but that would be the effect of the amendment.
I should not wish to give the impression that my opposition —which is fairly fundamental opposition —to the amendment means that I do not value the work of voluntary organisations. Far from it. Their contribution to local areas and communities is very important. However, that contribution is not uniform across the country. As I said, local authorities are best placed to judge their spending priorities in the light of local circumstances. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: I was a little surprised that my noble kinsman said that local authorities were best able to judge their spending priorities. Why did he not say that in connection with the previous amendment?
Lord Henley: I said nothing which differed from what my noble friend Lady Blatch said. That judgment would be within the overall limits set by the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may clear up one minor matter. I did not intend to suggest that I thought that I had lined up a bevy of speakers in support of the amendment who had failed to turn up. I simply meant that I know that it is a subject which is dear to the hearts of many noble Lords, but look at the clock. The Minister is tempting me to say, and it is sensible to say, that we shall have to consider returning to the matter at a later stage in order to enable other noble Lords to take part in a debate on the subject at an earlier hour.
I accept that there are problems in defining a voluntary organisation. I am sad that that might be a reason for denying the thrust of the amendment. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about empowerment and allowing people to live their own lives and taking the issue outside the constraints imposed by the capping regime is a very important and fundamental one which clearly divides us. I did not expect a different response. In view of the hour I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but it is a matter to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Power to designate authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 186A and 186B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 187:
Page 37, line 38, at end insert ("and the Common Council;").
The noble Lord said: I hope that nobody will think that in moving an amendment to include the City of
1290
London in the capping regulations we are being discriminatory. We are seeking to remove discrimination, which is becoming increasingly untenable as the Government have extended their view of capping and the coverage of capping. The last justification for excluding the Common Council of the City of London from the capping provisions disappears when the £15 million limit on budgets is removed.
The City of London is already peculiarly affected by government legislation. It is the only council in the whole of the country which is allowed to keep a specific amount of its non-domestic rate for its own purposes rather than having it allocated on the normal basis. In 1990–91 the City of London spent 62 per cent. above the standard spending assessment. That came to a total of over £10,000 a head above the standard spending assessment, but the council was not designated for capping.
This is not an attack on the City of London. Supporters of the City of London have argued that its circumstances are peculiar in that a significant number of people travel in to work in the City of London every day. That fact is specifically taken into account in the standard spending assessment, as the Minister will confirm. Such a consideration makes a great deal of difference, as she knows, to the poll tax charged in Westminster. Whatever excuse there might have been for excluding from these procedures the Common Council of the City of London, it disappeared when the minimal level of budget was abolished and when the Government are taking powers under this Bill even to cap the council tax of the larger parishes.
We are not in favour of capping and have not been in favour of the extension of capping that is proposed in the Bill, but at least we should try to be logical about it. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am extremely puzzled by this amendment. This question was posed in another place and the answer was given that all billing authorities —including the Common Council of the City of London—are already within the capping regime by virtue of Clause 53(1), which defines references to an authority in Chapter V as a billing authority and major precepting authority. There is no question of exempting the Common Council from the regime of capping. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly the Minister has caught me by surprise. I apologise for any inadequacy in my research. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 188:
Page 38, leave out lines 11 to 13.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is more in the form of a technical amendment. It concerns the to-ing and fro-ing which may take place between an authority and the Secretary of State in making the final decisions about capping.

1291
As I understand it—and I am now nervous about my understanding of these matters—as the 1988 Act stands an authority must notify the Secretary of State of decisions that it makes about the demand on its collection fund within seven days. That applies to substitute decisions as well. Having made its calculations, the law provides that an authority can reset its Section 95 calculations, though any substitute calculations cannot be at a higher level. I have some knowledge of that matter because I took part in the debates on the 1988 Bill.
There may be circumstances in which an authority sets its original Section 95 calculation but before the level of council tax is set it reconsiders the matter and reduces its budget. The provisions of the Bill require the Secretary of State to ignore that decision for the purpose of designation and treat the authority as though it had not reset its budget. For example, an authority might reset its budget at a level which turns out to be a level that the Government would regard as excessive but would not attract designation due to de minimis provisions.
We believe that the Secretary of State should be empowered to take account of the most up-to-date information from the local authority about its budget before making a decision about capping. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that there is a misunderstanding about this amendment also. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales explained when this amendment was considered in another place, it seems a particularly odd amendment. I have no doubt that it is intended to undermine the capping provisions. But let us examine its potential effects, since I suspect that they are not altogether those intended by the noble Lord opposite.
In the vast majority of cases an authority will set one budget for the year and in those cases the amendment would have no effect whatever. In the cases where an authority does set a substitute budget for the year, it will have done so for one of two reasons: either it will have decided, quite voluntarily, that it wishes to reduce the demand made upon its council tax payers—I am sure that we shall all welcome that—or its original budget may have been quashed as a result of a failure to comply with the provisions governing budget setting.
In the first case the amendment would require the Secretary of State, in exercising his capping powers, to consider the original, higher budget. Yet the demand upon council tax payers—and it is the demand upon such taxpayers with which we are concerned—would be a different, lower amount. It makes no sense to ignore the revised budget. To do so could in certain circumstances lead the Secretary of State to designate an authority when it has already reduced its budget. Does the noble Lord opposite think that the delay and expense involved would be welcomed by council tax payers? I think not.
In the second case, where an authority had set a revised budget as a result of quashing, that budget could be greater than the original. The amendment
1292
would, however, not allow the Secretary of State to have regard to the revised budget, whether or not it was higher than the original. In fact, it is difficult to see what budget the Secretary of State could have regard to in such circumstances. Surely not a quashed budget? In any event, council tax payers would be forced to bear the bills associated with the revised budget without any protection through capping. That is, as I am sure the Committee will agree, a nonsensical situation.
I should add, just in case it is what the noble Lord had in mind, that authorities cannot increase their budgets voluntarily. So they could not, even under the scenario suggested in the amendment, set a budget upon which the capping regime would bite and then set a higher revised budget which would allow a greater imposition to be made on their council tax payers and of course higher bills.
There is one further situation which would be affected by this amendment. Where an authority in the previous year had set a substitute lower budget, quite possibly as a result of capping, the amendment would mean that any judgment about whether the budget increase was excessive would not take account of that lower budget. As we are focusing on the effects of the increase on local taxpayers, this would be as nonsensical as the cases I have just described. I am fairly certain that is not what the noble Lord intended. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am much less apologetic about this amendment than I was about the previous one. The Minister has no doubt considered the implications of the amendment more carefully than I have been able to do. She has greater facilities to do so. If there are defects in the drafting I understand that. It will certainly form the basis for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. The Minister seems to ignore the fact that I recognised in my opening remarks that there was not any provision for a substitute budget to be set which was higher under the 1988 Act. I was not advocating that that should be the case.
All that goes to show that negotiation between a local authority and the Secretary of State on capping is inevitably an enormously complex process. In the years in which it has been enforced it has led to very great difficulty for many authorities in setting their budgets and sending out their poll tax demands on time. The result has been a considerable loss in revenue and therefore considerable unwanted, unnecessary and wasted increases in public expenditure. That confirms my view that we should get rid of the whole process. I shall read carefully the explanation which the Minister has given of the more abstruse implications of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 38, leave out lines 14 to 19.
The noble Lord said: There seems to be a flaw in the thinking of the Government. In responding to an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was

1293
most vehement that it was a principle of the capping procedures that they should apply to the whole budget and that there should not be any exceptions. Given the unacceptable position from which he starts, I understand the logic of that case. Therefore, why should a parish precept which is not within the control of a district council now be included with the district council's budget and count towards the judgment of the Secretary of State as to whether the budget is excessive?
Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to amend the provisions in Clause 54(4) by regulation. I am sorry that I did not take the opportunity to alert the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to that. It appears to me that the effect is to introduce another Henry VIII clause—in other words, to allow the text of the Bill to be varied without restriction by secondary legislation. That cannot be right. I question whether it is what the Government intended. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 198 would remove the power of the Secretary of State in Clause 54(6) to include local precepts in the budget requirement of billing authorities for capping purposes. Members of the Committee will be aware that unless an order is made under Clause 54(6) the Bill's provisions continue the current practice whereby parish precepts are ignored in considering whether the budget set by an authority is excessive or represents an excessive increase over the previous year. We therefore have no direct controls over revenue spending by parishes.
We hope that we shall be able to rely on the general pressure of accountability to control parish spending. However, were there, for example, to be a substantial increase in the level of a significant number of parish precepts pointing to a widespread transfer of functions and spending from district to parishes—and that is going on a pace at the moment with functions being moved from countries to districts and from districts to parishes—without any accompanying reduction in district spending we might consider that it would no longer be appropriate for parish expenditure to continue to be considered outside any control.
We have therefore included a provision—Clause 54(6)—to allow us to bring a district council's expenditure on meeting parish precepts within its budget for the purposes of capping. We are not of course proposing the capping of parish councils as such. We hope never to have to use this power; but, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales made clear in another place, we have no intention of relinquishing it as suggested in the amendment. To do so would prevent us from taking action on parish spending should the need ever arise. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was interested in the Minister's reply because I did not hear her confirm my comment about the reserve power which exists in the Bill to cap parish council expenditure. It is not enough for the Minister to say that the Government have no
1294
intention of doing so when the measure not only appears on the face of the Bill but was debated at an earlier stage. We are seeing the carrying out to excess of central government's obsession with any ability which a local authority has to control its own expenditure, whether by itself or by the way in which functions are carried on by parish councils. The Government are prepared to pursue local authorities down to the last dot and comma in order to secure that the Secretary of State has the unfettered ability to impose his own will on the budget of even the smallest local authority and on even the smallest amount of expenditure.
I still consider that the provision in the Bill which the amendment would remove enables the Secretary of State—it does not force him—at his own will and in his own judgment to include or exclude parish council expenditure from a district council's own budget. That cannot be a proper exercise of power. I must think again about the Henry VIII implications of the amendment before deciding whether I wish to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Designation of authorities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 190:
Page 38, line 46, at end insert ("and a statement of his reasons").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment No. 193 standing in my name. We are responding to what appears to be a wholly one-way process on the disclosure of information under Clause 56. At present the Secretary of State has virtually unlimited power to require local authorities to disclose information to him. In the circumstances we do not think it appropriate to object to that. However, there is virtually no power to require the Secretary of State to give any information to the local authority about the way in which he is carrying out the capping process, the reasons for it or its effects.
Under the 1988 Act, if an authority is designated for capping, it is given 28 days in which to inform the Secretary of State of the reasons why it believes that the cap should be at a different level from the one suggested. Therefore, the Act requires the authority to provide reasons but it does not make any provision for the Secretary of State to give his reasons.
After all, let us not eliminate the possibility—and I know it is blasphemy to say so—that the Secretary of State may be misinformed. There may be matters on which he has based his decision about which he is in error. It may be that if the authority is not given the Secretary of State's reasons for capping, it would be deprived of the opportunity to respond rationally to the capping decision by the Secretary of State and perhaps to do something about it.
In the Hammersmith and Fulham case, the High Court was told that the Secretary of State believed that his proposed reductions would be achievable

1295
without disrupting service delivery or causing financial difficulties. The affidavit on behalf of the Secretary of State stated that he had decided to approach the setting of the proposed maximum amounts on the basis of judging, from all the information available to him, whether the full reduction would be achievable in the year in question without disrupting service delivery or causing financial difficulties. That seems to us to be a totally inadequate exercise of the Secretary of State's responsibilities to deal fairly with local authorities. It seems to us entirely proper that those obligations should be laid impartially both on the authority and on the Secretary of State if there is to be a meaningful dialogue between them. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment and speak also to the amendments grouped with it. Their purpose is to provide information to the electorate and to concentrate the Secretary of State's mind on the effect of what he is doing.
It needs to be made clear—and if necessary it will have to be made clear in words of one syllable—just what is the impact in each area of the policies which are being imposed. That means listing the services. If we are to have capping and centralisation, the power should be allied with responsibility for that act. It would also give the electorate a clear understanding about who is responsible for the reduction of services as a result of capping. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I support Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It always seems to be a Conservative principle that you cannot have something for nothing. There is sense in that. It is accepted that increasing services involves taxation and the Conservative Party is always ready to make that point. However, by exactly the same logic, it seems to be equally clear that withdrawing funds must have the effect of reducing services unless the Government are suggesting that funds have literally been poured down the drain. Were that the case, I am sure that one newspaper or another would have reported it, photographed it and told us all about it.
If one takes away money, that must have consequences. Since there is no genuinely cost-free action, we should legitimately ask to be told what are those consequences.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments demonstrate a failure to understand how the capping regime works. For the past two years we have announced provisional capping criteria in advance for the information of authorities. They can then take account of the provisional criteria along with all other relevant matters when they take their budgeting decisions. It should then be clear to each authority why it has been designated for capping. Quite simply, such an authority would be one which has set a budget for the year in question which the Secretary of State considers, in accordance with principles adopted by him, to be excessive or to represent an excessive increase over that set for the previous year.
1296
In the notice of designation we shall notify any designated authority of those principles in accordance with Clause 56(1) (b). If noble Lords opposite are worried, as I suspect they are, about the reasons which led the Secretary of State to propose a certain amount as the cap for that authority, the answer is equally straightforward. The Secretary of State takes into account all the circumstances of the authority in deciding on the level of cap.
It is also nonsense to suggest, as the amendment does, that the Secretary of State should provide a summary of the service reductions which he considers are likely to result from a lower budget in line with his proposed or final cap. It is not for the Secretary of State to decide on the spending priorities of a designated authority. That is a matter for the authority itself. That has been said not only by myself but also by my noble friend Lord Henley on an earlier amendment.
It is for the authority itself to decide whether it wishes to challenge the proposed cap on the basis of its own information and to form its own judgment. Similarly, it is for the authority to decide how to live within its revised lower budget, whether it has accepted the proposed cap or not. It is certainly not for Ministers to become involved in the question of local authority budget priorities. They are matters for local decision.
With that explanation, I hope that the matter will not be pressed.
Earl Russell: I am puzzled by the Minister's explanation. The Minister is arguing that individual priorities are no concern of the Government but that the overall total is. Is that not like a Division List in which we know the total number of people who voted but have no idea who those people are? Is it not difficult to obtain the whole without knowing about the sum of the parts?
Baroness Blatch: There is absolutely no correlation between the example given by the noble Earl and what we are saying. The Secretary of State is concerned with budget limits. That is the beginning and end of his power in the matter. It is for local authorities to set their budgets within those limits. That is what it is about. It is not for the Secretary of State to become involved in the minutiae or the priority setting for a local authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The situation is even worse than what is suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He suggests there may be a Division List in which we know the numbers but not the people. I suspect we have here a Division List in which we know the people on one side but not on the other. In other words, there are full requirements for disclosure by the local authority of its budget but no requirements for the Secretary of State.
If indeed, as the Minister suggests, the responsibility of the Secretary of State begins and ends with the determination of principles for designation or capping, why is it that affidavits on behalf of the Secretary of State in the Hammersmith and Fulham case which I quoted expressed views about the ability

1297
of the authority to contain that amount of expenditure within one year. It seems to me that counsel on behalf of the Secretary of State was going well beyond the principles which the Minister herself indicated.
It is not possible to treat this as a purely theoretical matter. It has been a matter of dispute between the Secretary of State and local authorities since the poll tax was introduced and increasingly as capping has been introduced. It will get worse as time goes on.
I shall confine myself to the one example. In the first year Calderdale had a poll tax which was below the national average and after capping would have been in the bottom 5 per cent. in the country. Not surprisingly, Calderdale wrote to ask what principles were used by the Secretary of State in arriving at the maximum amount for the budget he proposed. Two days later the Department of the Environment replied:
"The Secretary of State has proposed that maximum, after taking into account both the first principle in your authority's notice of designation, whereby he considered Calderdale's SECTION 95(4) calculation to be excessive and all the relevant financial information available to him about your authority's financial affairs".
In other words—I have to repeat it in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—he is saying that his designation means what he wants it to mean; nothing more and nothing less.
Calderdale replied:
"Thank you for your letter of 6th April. It tells me nothing. Am I to infer from your letter that the Secretary of State is not prepared to disclose the 'relevant information' available to him?".
The department wrote:
"As the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on the matter in the House of Commons on 3 April 1990, when he took his decisions … he considered all the relevant information available to him. This information included all the material which your council had submitted to him".
Calderdale replied:
"I note that the information … included the material submitted by the Council … What else did it include?".
I could go on but I will not. If I may, I shall draw my conclusion from this before I give way to the Minister.
The point about this is that it is a dialogue of death. Councils who genuinely and with good reason do not understand what is being done to them and do not understand why they are being discriminated against are asking for information and they are being met with complete stonewall tactics from the Department of the Environment on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has been rather helpful in using the Calderdale example because there was nothing at all inconsistent about what the Department of the Environment said in the letter to Calderdale. The important point is that the Secretary of State is primarily concerned with spending limits, but in the course of the procedures that the authority and the Secretary of State have to go through there is a dialogue between the local authority and the Secretary of State, as there was with Calderdale and the department.
It is for the local authority to present its case, and in presenting its case it will refer to the impact of the spending limit on its programme and its priorities and whether it can live within those limits. There is
1298
considerable evidence that the Secretary of State does listen and has in the light of that evidence modified capping limits.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What happens is that the Secretary of State behaves like a judge who hears all the evidence and is not required to analyse it in public or give reasons for his judgment. That is not a proper process, and it is not a process which we should encourage. After all, these decisions affect many millions of people and many hundreds of millions of pounds. It is not enough to say that the local authority can put forward all the arguments it likes. There is no requirement on the Secretary of State to respond to those arguments.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure whether it is deliberate, but the noble Lord appears to be ignoring the fact that when the cap is finally set it has to come before Parliament for affirmative resolution; so the Secretary of State does have to present his case in public to Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: He is not presenting his case before Parliament. He is presenting the results of his deliberations before Parliament.
Nothing that happened in the Calderdale case detracts from the argument I am making. What is happening is that councils are throwing information at the Secretary of State about the way in which they have prepared their budgets, about the content of their budgets and about the effect on their budgets if there were to be caps as proposed by the Secretary of State. All the Secretary of State does is draw all this information into himself and does nothing else except give an ex cathedra judgment at the end of the day and report that judgment to Parliament. I certainly do not call that consultation. I do not even call it a proper way to proceed as between people who should have some degree of self-respect.
In view of the lateness of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [No challenge or acceptance]:
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Duty of designated billing authority]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 194
Page 40, line 42, leave out from ("year") to end of line 47 and insert ("is appropriate to the needs of its area").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 194 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 197. Here we are seeking in a slightly different way something of the same sort of concession as we were seeking on earlier amendments —that is, that there should be greater consultation and autonomy for local authorities in deciding on the appropriate budget—so we are seeking to include the provision that the budget should be appropriate to the needs of the area both in Clause 60 and in Clause 69. So, we are trying to make the designation procedure and the rest of the capping

1299
procedure a consultation exercise between the Secretary of State and the local authority. Amendment No. 194, to Clause 60, is about billing authorities and Amendment No. 197, to Clause 61, is about authorities which levy precepts.
We are proposing in the amendment that the Secretary of State would intervene to force the authority to examine its budget, set out its case and also that the Secretary of State would be required to provide a view. At the end of the process, the authority would be left to determine a budget, or a precept, which is appropriate to the needs of the area. That is a two-way process. It is a process which would be recognised by local people as effectively securing something which is appropriate to their needs. It is not at all like the one-way process, which is the basis of this legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As I explained when we discussed Amendments No. 190 to 193, the cap set for an authority takes account of all of the individual circumstances of an authority. Any cap would be, in the Secretary of State's view, reasonable, achievable and appropriate in the light of all of those circumstances. If an authority challenges its proposed cap, it is required to provide reasons in support of its alternative. The Secretary of State will consider the points made and reach his conclusion on the basis of all the information available to him which he considers to be relevant.
It is not then for the authority to second guess the Secretary of State and to decide whether or not, in its view, the cap is "appropriate". It is of course depressingly clear that the purpose of thse amendments is to provide capped authorities with the opportunity to ignore the Secretary of State's considered view and to carry on imposing an unnecessary burden on their council taxpayers.
These amendments would offer authorities the opportunity to vitiate the whole effect of capping by substituting their view of an appropriate level of expenditure for that of the Secretary of State. What is the point of having a capping regime in that case? We know the Opposition's views on capping—if they were the Government they would have no capping. Their lack of concern for local taxpayers is clear. There is a fundamental disagreement between us on that point. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The thrust of that reply is indicated in the phrase "second guessing the Secretary of State". Indeed, there is bound to be an element of guessing what the Secretary of State intends because there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to say what he intends. It is late at night. These amendments are, as the Minister rightly says, intended to change fundamentally the capping process. It is clear that at this time and under these circumstances we are likely to be repeating ourselves if we continue with amendments along these lines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
1300
Clause 61 [Duty of designated precepting authority]:
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Duty to consult ratepayers]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 198:
Page 43, line 37, at end insert:
("(7) Each relevant authority—

(a) shall prepare and publish a plan for expenditure, relief from non-domestic rates, and support in kind that the authority intends to incur, or provide to, voluntary organisations over the next three financial years;

(b) shall prepare and publish modifications to the current plan, or if the case requires, a new plan on an annual basis; and

(c) shall designate an officer or officers to be responsible for enquiries relating to the plan prepared under paragraph (a) above.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above "voluntary organisation" and "officer" have the same meanings as in the Local Government Act 1972.").
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we return to the problems that voluntary organisations have suffered increasingly over recent years of not knowing because of continually constrained local authority spending how they are to plan for the next few months in many cases—but certainly not over any long period.
I recognise that to give voluntary organisations the security that they would like for three or five years, or whatever, without the possibility of change, would be to give them a luxury that, it is to be regretted, nobody else in the world has. That is not what is proposed by the amendment. What is proposed is that authorities shall publish their plans in order to assist voluntary organisations to include relief from non-domestic rates over a three-year period. They shall publish modifications to that plan or a replacement plan on an annual basis. In addition, the amendment requires that an officer in a local authority be designated as responsible for inquiries relating to that plan. That is already a matter of best practice among many authorities. We have already heard today about the problems of voluntary organisations. This amendment may be a small means of assisting their position. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I should like to add a brief word of support for the amendment. I realise that at this late hour there is little likelihood of it being accepted but I hope that the principle behind it will receive detailed consideration from the Government. For many of those working in the voluntary sphere there is an element of arbitrariness, uncertainty and even mystery about the way in which decisions are made. At a time when voluntary agency activity is being encouraged and voluntary organisations are being encouraged to take more responsibility, it would be sensible to facilitate longer term planning in partnership. I believe that the amendment would help in that respect and I hope that we can have some assurance from the Government that they will look at the principles behind it.
Earl Howe: This amendment would place a new duty on local authorities to plan their support for

1301
voluntary organisations and to designate an officer or officers to be responsible for inquiries about the plan. The plans, which would be published, would cover three financial years and be subject to annual review. They would contain details of expenditure, of relief from non-domestic rates and of support in kind which authorities would incur or provide over the next three years.
Voluntary groups make a vital contribution to our society. They are innovative and they can respond quickly and flexibly to changing demands. They are by their nature close to peoples' needs. Those needs might be, for example, for particular personal services which can best be provided by a voluntary group, for more general leisure activity or for the improvement or protection of the local environment.
The relationship between local authorities and voluntary organisations is therefore already very close. Local authorities provide valuable support for local voluntary groups through grants, rate relief and help in kind. This support covers the whole range of the activities of local authorities. Indeed, in parts of the country it involves both county and district. I cannot therefore accept that a duty to plan for expenditure on voluntary organisations alone across such a diverse set of relationships would be practical. It would cut right across individual service plans, some of which are statutory, some of which are not. In some areas it would even cut across local authorities. It would place an additional burden on authorities which they would have to meet from within their existing resources.
The amendment mentions relief from non-domestic rates. Mandatory relief for charities from non-domestic rates is 80 per cent. That is entirely borne by the national non-domestic rates pool so there is no need for local authorities to plan for that relief. Local authorities have discretion to increase mandatory relief to 100 per cent. and to relieve non-profit-making bodies which are not charities of up to 100 per cent. of their non-domestic rate. Those decisions have to be taken in the context of the annual cycle of national and local government finance and of annual decisions by individual authorities of the calls they will make on their charge payers or council tax payers. It would therefore be inappropriate to commit authorities to three-year plans which would have to be reviewed each year and which could not be finalised until after those decisions had been taken.
The amendment has the look of a proposal that favours and promotes the voluntary sector. In reality, it achieves little or nothing at considerable cost and would certainly entail a great deal of unproductive work on the part of local authority staff. What surely matters is that the needs of the community are recognised and met. As I said, the voluntary sector makes a vital contribution in that context.
1302
It seems to me that there is absolutely no need to have a statutory duty to prepare plans which cut right across individual service plans and which, incidentally, make no distinction between grants to voluntary bodies and contracting with those bodies for the delivery of services such as community care. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Judd, it is those contracts that enable voluntary bodies to plan for the long term.
For the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: With regard to the cost of implementing the proposed arrangement, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities believes that any additional costs would be negligible. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised an important point as regards the relationship between the work of voluntary organisations and the service plans of local authorities. It is precisely to assist that relationship that the proposal has been put forward.
The noble Earl also talked about the ability of voluntary organisations to respond quickly and flexibly. I do not believe that I am the only Member of this Chamber who has direct experience of a voluntary organisation being entirely unable to respond quickly and flexibly because it does not know where its money will come from over the next few months or indeed weeks.
The amendment is supported by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and it was suggested by the voluntary sector. I am sorry that it did not meet with more favour from the Government Benches. It is perhaps a matter to which we shall need to return at a later stage, although in a slightly different form. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 203 not moved.]
Clauses 66, 67 and 68 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clauses 94 to 96 agreed to.
Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 not moved.]
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-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

  GHANA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  GHANA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  IFAD: FUNDING FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMME FOR AFRICA
  IFAD: FUNDING FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMME FOR AFRICA
  IFAD: FUTURE FUNDING
  IFAD: FUTURE FUNDING
  SPEED LIMITS ON MOTORWAYS: ENFORCEMENT
  SPEED LIMITS ON MOTORWAYS: ENFORCEMENT
  DEER POACHING: DETERRENCE
  DEER POACHING: DETERRENCE
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY LTD: SALE
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY LTD: SALE
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: 1992 STAFF BUDGET
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: 1992 STAFF BUDGET
  SHORTHOLD TENANCIES: STAMP DUTY
  SHORTHOLD TENANCIES: STAMP DUTY
  PSA PROJECTS
  PSA PROJECTS
  EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: LOCATION
  EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: LOCATION