Sitting of 30 January 1992

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

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 February.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Trust Ports
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in privatising the trust ports in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): A proposal for a draft Order in Council, which would provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports to be privatised, is currently under preparation. It is scheduled for publication in the summer at which time all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.
    Mr. Field: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he ensure that the employees of the trust ports have an opportunity to purchase shares and partake in the wealth created, thereby furthering the Government's privatisation proposals and the extension of share ownership? Does he agree that those policies have constituted one of the successful planks of the social revolution in this country since 1979?
    Mr. Needham: I can certainly confirm that it is our intention to ensure that the legislation contains proposals such as my hon. Friend suggested, just as there are in the legislation that applies to the rest of the country. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will oppose our present privatisation proposal with the same degree of enthusiasm that he opposed the privatisation proposals introduced on Monday. I doubt whether he will have an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of the Northern Ireland ports, but, were he to do so, as he comes from Wigan his knowledge of the pier might be of assistance.
    Mr. Beggs: What is the present level of grant paid to each of the port authorities in Northern Ireland? What change will be made to the level of grant paid to those ports which move from trust status to the private sector? When will we have a level playing field in Northern Ireland with fair competition between all ports?
    Mr. Needham: We shall have a level playing field as long as the present Administration are able to continue their privatisation policy. The proposals adopted by the EC mean that 75 per cent. of grant is available to publicly owned or trust ports and, under the European regional development fund rules, 50 per cent. is available to privately owned ports. That is a matter for the EC and the Commission to decide, not the Government.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will have noted that other people have joined the anti-privatisation lobby in relation to electricity, as he will have discovered on Monday. There is great concern in Northern Ireland, especially following a report from a Committee of the House on land in the harbour region which was sold off cheaply when Harland and Wolff was privatised. Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever privatisation

    1057
    plans he has for the trust ports, there will be no recognition of those people who seem to have an interest in cashing in on the endeavours for their own ends?
    Mr. Needham: The Government have an obligation to Parliament and to the taxpayer to ensure maximum proceeds from any privatisation of land. Whether that happens ultimately will be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to judge. There is great potential in the land around the port in Belfast and it is important that, when that land is sold, it is sold to a company capable of developing it to the best advantage of the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland.

    New Roads, South Antrim
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total figure will be for new road schemes in the Antrim, South constituency for (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.
    Mr. Needham: Following an adjustment in planned expenditure, it is now intended to spent £0.5 million in 1993–94 on the construction of a slip road from the M2 motorway to ensure that it is in place when the new Antrim hospital opens. No expenditure will be incurred on major road schemes in the other two years.
    Mr. Forsythe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good reply. As he knows, the decision made at an earlier stage not to complete the slip road was considered to be ludicrous. Is he aware of the difficulties experienced on the part of the A26 that has not yet been dualled? Is he further aware that a number of patients from a wide area—indeed, from as distant as Larne—will be going to the hospital, meaning that good roads are essential to serve the hospital?
    Mr. Needham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. My hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for health in Northern Ireland is not able to be here today because he is on duty in the Province. He and I have had a series of meetings about the provision of the slip road, and he reminded me of an undertaking that I had given when Minister responsible for health matters a few years ago. So together we moved heaven and earth to ensure, in a difficult year, that the necessary money was made available.
    I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the A26. He will be aware, bearing in mind the other pressures we have on the budget this year, how difficult it has been to get a higher priority for roads. So long as I am responsible for transport in Northern Ireland, I shall continue to fight that corner as best I can.

    RUC Special Branch
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the staff resources available to the special branch of the RUC.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, this information is confidential.
    Mr. Browne: I accept the need for secrecy in the matter. Is the Minister satisfied that the present staffing levels are
    1058
    sufficient to carry out the necessary pre-emptive intelligence work? When will the agreed 441 new RUC people be recruited?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The Secretary of State announced in November, as my hon. Friend says, that the Chief Constable's request for 441 additional police officers would be met. The recruitment of those officers began immediately, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that more than 100 additional RUC and RUC reserve recruits were taken into training in December.
    Mr. Maginnis: I am full of praise for the work that is being done by special branch in the RUC. Is the Minister aware that the best return for that good work is not being achieved in that shortcomings in the law allow the higher echelons of terrorist organisations—their command and control structures—to remain free to walk the streets with impunity, despite the fact that the RUC has provided high-grade intelligence about those people? Is he further aware that, in the wake of the Nelson trial, it is important to ensure that absolute primacy of the RUC in delivering law and order to the people of Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the compliment that he paid to the special branch and to the RUC. I am sure that it is shared on both sides of the House, as it is from the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable expert in these matters, thinks that specific aspects of the law should be addressed, I shall be happy to hear from him.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Minister agree that in any society, the public interest requires a system of law enforcement and justice that all can support and in which all can have confidence? Does he believe that that is possible in Northern Ireland, when some sections of the security services are colluding with terrorists, when they are using terrorists as agents while they are involved in terrorist activity and when some members of the security services are handing out confidential security documents as though they were pen-pal photographs? What changes will he and the Secretary of State demand so that the integrity of the law can be protected from some of those who are charged with enforcing it?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, the latter part of which related to a court case that has not yet been concluded, so it would be inappropriate and imprudent of me to comment on it now. My answer to the first part of his question is that in the few weeks that I have had my present portfolio, two or three times in public I have stated my firm belief that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the police and the security forces—indeed, in the interests of all of us —that the law be applied even-handedly and that those responsible for applying the law should do so.
    Mr. McNamara: Can the Minister assure the House that he entirely supports the primacy of the police in all security matters? If so, will he now state to the House that the police are, and should always be, in control of all intelligence operations in Northern Ireland? So that all sections of the community can have confidence in the security forces, will the Government undertake to make a statement to the House after the conclusion of the Nelson case?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have already made my position clear in regard to the Nelson case, and I have nothing more to add. As for the primacy of the police, the view of Ministers is that that is not in question.

    Economic Prospects
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future prospects for the Northern Ireland economy.
    Mr. Needham: Although Northern Ireland's economic prospects are closely linked to those of the rest of the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland economy has fared better than that of almost any other United Kingdom region in recent years. As the national economy moves out of recession, Northern Ireland is therefore well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.
    Mr. Trimble: As the Minister says, the Northern Ireland economy is closely linked to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Experience has tended to show that its pattern moves somewhat behind that of the United Kingdom in terms of time. The rest of the United Kingdom now seems to be beginning to move out of recession; is it not true that Northern Ireland is about to move deeper into it? Would the Minister care to comment on a recent report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—a firm of consultants on which the Government normally rely—which states that industrial output is likely to decline by between 2 and 4 per cent. this year, and that unemployment may increase by some 10,000 as a result?
    Mr. Needham: That may have been true until the current recession, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the present circumstances. Whereas in the past Northern Ireland was always the furthest point on the beach that the tide reached, and therefore the first point that it left, on this occasion we entered the recession later and weathered it better. The unemployment figures demonstrate that Northern Ireland was the only part of the United Kingdom that experienced no increase in unemployment; the Cambridge econometric forecast shows that last year it was the only region that experienced any growth, and that this year it is likely to be one of four regions that will experience growth.
    Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte is probably the worst of a lot of very bad forecasters. For example, it forecast an increase in unemployment of 3,000 for 1986–87; in fact unemployment fell by 6,800. It forecast a decrease of 5,000 for 1987–88; in fact, the decrease was 7,800. It forecast a fall of 3,000 for 1988–89; the actual decrease was 9,500. Perhaps economic forecasters and consultants should consider the beam in their own eye before criticising the Government's figures.
    Rev. William McCrea: My constituency has the second highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. Does not the Minister realise that the unemployment figures in the Province are deplorable? Young people face lengthening dole queues. Will the Minister tell the House and the people of the Province what measure he intends to take to assist people over 45 whose age condemns them to humiliating interviews and, indeed, rejection? Many of them have done excellent work in the past.
    Mr. Needham: The Government's job training programme includes a series of measures to assist those
    1060
    over the age of 25, and to ensure that they can receive an element of training. The same applies to the young unemployed. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the unacceptable level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to convey a sense of complacency; I am merely saying that the Northern Ireland economy has done very much better in the latest recession—and would have done better still had it not been for the appalling IRA atrocities that make inward investment so difficult.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: This was the first time that I have heard the Minister quote figures with any satisfaction. I clearly understood why when I heard how they confirmed his view of the economy in Northern Ireland. He is an isolated figure in the Government because he is the first Minister whom I have heard speak highly of the work of the Cambridge school. Perhaps he should get in step with the rest of the Government.
    Does the Minister agree that if those projects that are partly funded by the European Community fund do not proceed this year, there is a danger that there will he some damage to the economy of Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that this arises from the Government's refusal to accept European Community rules on additionality? If he accepts both those propositions, what pressure is the Northern Ireland Office putting on the Government to conform to those European Community rules?
    Mr. Needham: The Government have always abided by, and agreed with, the additionality rules as far as they apply to Northern Ireland. It is unacceptable to us that there should be any withholding of funds due to Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, those funds are of importance to us in the provision of our capital infrastructure, although they are not totally significant.
    I can quote a final figure to the hon. Gentleman, as he enjoys my quoting figures. It is that, according to the Department of Employment figures, if the Labour party's economic proposals for a minimum wage were put into effect it would cost some 2 million jobs, of which 50,000
    would be in Northern Ireland, where we have a large number of women workers in the clothing, textile and garment industries. The hon. Gentleman's advancement to the ministerial Dispatch Box would be a disaster for employment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend further underline that the greatest; threat to the economic prosperity of both the Province and the Republic of Ireland is terrorism? Will he emphasise again and again that the victims of terrorism are not just those who are maimed, injured and killed but the many people who are put on the dole because terrorism deters investment from elsewhere in Europe?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All of us who have been involved in trying to increase employment in Northern Ireland know the damage that terrorism does to our chances of achieving that aim. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has, much more eloquently than I could, told us of the damage that it does and the effect that it has on the young people of Northern

    1061
    Ireland because it gives them a future of either migration or unemployment. That is the hideous hypocrisy of the IRA's campaign.

    Housing Executive
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the funding of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
    Mr. Needham: The total resources available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in 1992–93 will be around £483 million. These substantial resources will enable the executive to continue the progress that it has made in recent years in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the cut of £19–9 million from £262 million in the 1992–93 budget is a dramatic reduction given that the proposal for the programme of building and house repairs in Northern Ireland agreed by the Government was already the lowest in the history of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Is he aware that there are 23,000 people on the waiting list—10,000 in urgent need—and that urban regeneration will be set back? Allied to this is the disastrous state of the building and construction industry. Can I encourage the Minister to do the double by restoring the funding so as to enable much-needed house building and repairs to go ahead, and at the same time give the necessary financial boost to the devastated building and construction industry?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the record of this Government on housing in Northern Ireland since 1979 is without parallel. Any visitors who come to the Province can see the quality of public housing in Northern Ireland. The urgent waiting list has reduced from some 18,800 in 1981 to 9,900 in 1991. The amount of new housing in Northern Ireland, as everyone can see, has changed the housing situation from one of the worst in Europe to one of the best in Europe. That does not mean that we do not still have problems in rural areas.
    The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government must order their priorities and he knows the extent of construction needed after buildings have been bombed. Therefore, we must all continue to point out that the bombing of houses, bridges and roads inevitably impacts on our ability to find funds elsewhere. The construction industry in Northern Ireland is not in a disastrous decline —private house building has maintained its growth rate and has the best record anywhere in the country.
    Mr. Kilfedder: A colossal number of Housing Executive dwellings in my constituency are in urgent need of renovation—I am thinking of the housing estates at Tullycarnet, Ballybeen, Groomsport, Bangor and Holyrood. May I urge the Minister to give sufficient funds to the Housing Executive to enable the work to go ahead without further delay?
    Mr. Needham: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman why the funding for the Housing Executive is not as easy this year as it has perhaps been in former years. I take his point about maintenance and I shall of course draw it to the Housing Executive's attention. It is the Housing Executive's responsibility to determine how it spends the
    1062
    funds that the Government make available to it. I say again that in Northern Ireland the Housing Executive has spent a great deal more per capita than is the case elsewhere and that can be seen by anyone who visits public sector housing in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister ensure that when the Housing Executive engages in new build it will incorporate in every scheme a large number of two-bedroomed bungalows and a number of houses especially built to cater for the needs of the disabled? That would allow a tremendous movement of people from under-utilised accommodation to smaller accommodation and would allow many people who have been on the waiting list for council houses for many years to be moved into smaller accommodation. It would create a domino effect across the board.
    Mr. Needham: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am sure that the Housing Executive will want to consider it and I shall personally bring it to its attention.
    Mr. Stott: There is no doubt about the high quality of housing stock that has been built by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland and every time I see it I am envious and wish that I had some of it in Wigan. Will the Minister confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, which was that the Housing Executive has lost about £19 million of funding for 1991–92 and that that will have a serious effect on new build? It is alleged that those cuts are occasioned by the additional costs of dealing with terrorism. Will he confirm that the Housing Executive believes that during the period 1992–95 it will lose a further £50 million from its anticipated budget if the cuts are not restored? That would have a disastrous effect on waiting lists in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: Every year that I have been Minister with responsibility for housing—it is now six years—the Housing Executive has suggested an amount which it hopes that the Government will give it, while knowing perfectly well that it will not get all that it asks for. The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not those proposed by the Government but those which the Housing Executive says that it could spend. The actual reduction is about £7 million. Although I should have preferred there to be no reduction, the fact that the priorities within the Northern Ireland block are law, order and security inevitably means that there are consequences which fall to other matters, and housing is one. The important point is that on which the hon. Gentleman put his finger—the quality of housing in Northern Ireland. As it improves and as housing unfitness is reduced, there is less need to spend so much on it, which allows resources to be spent elsewhere.

    Investment
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the value of inward investment in Northern Ireland since 1979.
    Mr. Needham: Since 1983 selective financial assistance totalling £104 million has been offered to projects with a

    1063
    total forecast investment of nearly £320 million. Comprehensive figures for non-assisted projects and for the years 1979–83 are not available.
    Mr. Coombs: It would be idle to speculate on what the figures might have been if it were not for the security situation. Can my hon. Friend say whether the recent bombing campaign has had any impact on prospects for future investment, and whether any new initiatives are under consideration to boost the figures further?
    Mr. Needham: All the statutory agencies in Northern Ireland do whatever they can to boost investment. Clearly, the recent bombing campaign in Northern Ireland does not help our attempts to attract inward investment, but all parties in the House, as part of a Northern Ireland team, work together on ways of trying to get more investment. We have been most successful in the past few years in attracting investment from 18 countries. The IRA campaign leaves an image which is a travesty of the reality of life in Northern Ireland. People who visit always seem astonished by the normalcy of the life of the vast majority of the people most of the time. It would sometimes help if that normalcy were a little better portrayed by the likes of such as the BBC and by those journalists who earn their living by reporting only violence.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister agree that the best prospect of reaching and sustaining adequate inward investment will arise only when right hon. and hon. Members representing the people of Northern Ireland put aside their petty differences and continue talks with the Secretary of State to bring the violence in the Province to an end?
    Mr. Needham: Whatever differences may or may not exist, it is erring on the side of arrogance to suggest that they are petty. The differences are deep and go far back into history, but while I have been a Minister dealing with the economy and the environment I have always had the greatest possible collaboration from all the parties in Northern Ireland, which have always worked cheek by jowl with one another and with me for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the politicians of Northern Ireland for doing that.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that there is a roadblock on investment in the construction industry because of the problem of landlocking? There is a big case of investment being held up in Ahoghill, and it is also being held up in Carrickfergus, and other places, too. Will the Minister undertake to consider that problem seriously?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Mallon: I hope that I shall not embarrass the Minister if I commend him again for his imaginative efforts and the time that he has spent abroad trying to develop inward investment. When he considers the figures for the past 10 years, does he have any plans for structural changes involving inward investment teams, especially in the United States? While we await the outcome of the general election, does he have any plans to discuss with the Northern Ireland parties how best we can all further inward investment? Despite what are often called our petty differences, inward investment is something on which we all agree.
    Mr. Needham: I should very much like the opportunity to discuss with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and other colleagues from Northern Ireland, how we can introduce a strategy for promoting inward investment over a longer time scale than that hitherto adopted. If the hon. Gentleman's words were an invitation to me, I shall take up that invitation.
    I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work on the link between Pittsburgh and Newry. That is a good case history, which shows a way forward by building confidence between potential overseas investors and parts of Northern Ireland. I am sure that we can build on that and that it will be ever more successful.

    Security
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Belfast.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The security situation in Belfast is kept under constant review and the size and disposition of the security force effort there are adjusted as necessary. In recent weeks, a number of additional measures have been introduced and the security forces have had considerable success in disrupting planned terrorist activity.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. May I pass on to him some of the comments made to me by people I know in Belfast? They have welcomed the increased presence of our defence forces in their beleaguered city. May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a report in the Sunday Express pointing out that paramilitaries convicted of bombing and murder are sheltering in the Republic are drawing more than £2 million per week in dole money and social security, paid for by the British taxpayer, while many would face reconviction if they returned to Ulster? Will my hon. Friend please look into the matter because those people are living off the system that they seek to destroy with their bombs and bullets?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the affairs of the Province and I thank her for it. I am aware of the speculative piece to which she refers. An individual's entitlement to social security benefit, including whether or not he or she receives benefit, is confidential information. I confirm that all claims to benefit are treated strictly in accordance with the law, and benefit would not be paid to any person unless the entitlement was valid.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Minister comment on the proposal to close the strategically placed Royal Ulster Constabulary station at Springfield parade in north-west Belfast?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No, but if the hon. Gentleman has views that he would like to express to me on that closure, I should be delighted to hear from him.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Minister ask the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to get her facts right and stop promoting bias in the House? Will he remind her that 98 per cent. of all people convicted of crimes of violence in Northern Ireland are residents of Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has made his own effective point in his own effective way. Having read the article, I admit that aspects of it caused my eyebrows to rise.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can Her Majesty's Ministers use the time before there is any question of political talks resuming to take the initiative in the security situation in Belfast and elsewhere in the Province? For normal political life to be maintained in Northern Ireland, is it not critical to defeat terrorism, and must not that defeat come before political changes or constitutional arrangements?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he would wish to put it in the context of the fact that security policy works alongside political, economic and social policy. There is no quick fix to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt, however, that we have that commitment. May I encourage him by telling him that the Chief Constable's view is that four out of every five planned terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland are thwarted before they take place? Last year, we took 400 people to court charged with terrorist-related offences, including 38 for murder. My hon. Friend will have welcomed the substantial arms and explosives finds in Belfast just a few weeks ago.

    Rathlin Island
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in providing Rathlin island with mains electricity.
    Mr. Needham: Preparations to provide mains electricity on Rathlin island are progressing satisfactorily, and supply is expected to be available to consumers in September.
    Ms. Hoey: I am pleased at the progress on that issue, but may I ask the Minister now to look urgently at the decision to allow a Scottish ferry company to run the ferry between Rathlin and Ballycastle? Does he realise that the islanders have run the ferry for many years and that until this year they received not a penny of subsidy, unlike the Scottish ferries? Why does he wish to take away the Rathliners' jobs? Will he please look at this urgently and change his decision?
    Mr. Needham: Absolutely no decision of any sort has been made as regards the introduction of Cal-Mac. The hon. Lady knows those ferry owners as well as I do. I have made it perfectly clear to the ferry owners in Rathlin that we shall do nothing without discussing it with them and the islanders' development and community association. Those discussions have been going on with everyone involved. We need to ensure that we get a ferry between Rathlin and Ballycastle which can operatate the whole year round and open the island much more to tourist traffic and economic development. We are having the ferry company over to see how it works, but no decision has been made. We shall look at this very carefully and have discussions with the current owners and with everybody on the island before anything is decided.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome across the House for his response to the questions? It is important to have both mains electricity and improvements to the harbours at
    1066
    Ballycastle and Church Bay. There will be a great welcome for the fact that there will be discussions with Richard Green and others who have kept Rathlin linked to the main part of Northern Ireland all these years.
    Mr. Needham: I thank my hon. Friend, and give to the House the absolute commitment that nothing will be done on Rathlin island without the fullest possible co-operation with all the islanders and their association. Nothing will be imposed by the Department of the Environment without my having the closest opportunity to discuss all this with the islanders and their representatives myself.

    Military Conflict
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the prospects for an early settlement to the military conflict in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Brooke): The actions of terrorists in Northern Ireland cannot be dignified with the description "military conflict". Peace will come when the terrorists realise, as they must, that they will never be allowed to prevail.
    Mr. Hain: There is widespread admiration for the Secretary of State's persistence in tackling paramilitary terrorism and for his patience over the political talks. May I put to him the comments on BBC television this week of the commanding officer of bloody Sunday, Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, who said that the present Government's policies and those of their predecessors had failed completely? Is there not a case for an entirely new agenda of constitutional talks, involving all elected representatives of both north and south, to agree a solution to this crisis? Otherwise we shall have 23 more years of killing and destruction.
    Mr. Brooke: I am conscious how, whenever we come to one of these sad anniversaries in Northern Ireland, those who have participated in Northern Ireland affairs in the past make their contributions to the current debate. As for talks, the party leaders and I issued a statement earlier this week. I think that there is hope and expectation on the part of us all that we shall be able to come back into talks after the general election.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that to deal with military conflicts in the Province British troops must be able to deal with the Irish Republican Army in a professional, military way, without their hands being tied behind their backs for political reasons? Does he further agree that people in the Province deserve equally high standards of security and protection from terrorism as those who live on the mainland?
    Mr. Brooke: I have already remarked on the phrase "military conflict". As to my hon. Friend's comment that the security forces should be allowed to operate without constraint from political considerations, I can give a categorical assurance that no such restraint for political reasons will be imposed. The security forces will, however, always operate under the rule of the law.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State remember that in Northern Ireland Question Time on 12 December he and I shared a concern about the build-up of munitions and arms as far south as Limerick for trans-shipment to

    1067
    Northern Ireland, as unfortunately happened? Does he feel that he might try to persuade Mr. Collins at their next meeting to devote a little more time to the containment of that particular problem rather than wasting it on demands that a policeman accompany every Army patrol in Northern Ireland, presumably to ensure that the Special Air Services remember to say "please" and "thank you" to any civilian they may encounter?
    Mr. Brooke: I had the opportunity to discuss the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised at the conference this week. The Minister of Justice, who of course accompanies the Minister for Foreign Affairs to these conferences, is fully seized—as is the Commissioner of the Garda—of the necessity to identify the whereabouts of the arsenal because of its profound value to the IRA.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the current security situation in Northern Ireland illustrates the irresponsibility of those who oppose the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act?
    Mr. Brooke: I have said before from the Dispatch. Box that the attitude of other parties in the House to that Act is a matter for them rather than for me.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that after the election and in the event of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) forming a Government, the right hon. Gentleman will support that Government in seeking to revive the talks on the basis of the three strands that have been the basis of his patient talks over the past two years? At the conclusion of the Nelson case, will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about the supremacy of the rule of law in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation, but in my day I fought the constituency of Islwyn which is now represented by the Leader of the Opposition, and I can tell him that it is pronounced "Issloin". In the unlikely event of an alternative Administration being returned to power and seeking to get talks started, on the basis of my experience over the past two years I wish the hon. Gentleman well. In response to the hon. Gentleman's second question, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, made it perfectly clear that we will not make any comment whatever on that case while it is proceeding.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been having important discussions today with President Yeltsin, who is on his first visit abroad as President of an independent Russia. My right hon. Friend will be meeting President Bush this evening after my right hon. Friend's arrival in New York to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
    Mr. Jones: I am sorry that I so rattled the Prime Minister with my question at the previous Prime Minister's Question Time that he has not come to the House today. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies spring budget report shows that Government borrowing is likely to reach £20 billion next year, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have reneged on their promises to balance the books?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget statement on matters relating to his question. As is absolutely clear, we have made our spending plans public. They are set out in detail and we have indicated how they are paid for. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear on Tuesday. I note that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers says:
    "Labour, if elected, would have little scope for increased spending in the early years unless it were willing to increase taxes by more than it has indicated."
    The country now says, "And how!"
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that too often we lose sight of the fact that the national health service was born as a result of co-operation between three parties? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the founders of the health service would be horrified at the resistance to the reforms so ably carried out by the Government for the benefit of patients throughout the country?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree. It is clear that we have not only substantially increased expenditure on the national health service but that we are the only party proposing credible reforms, the results of which are already showing. I assume that that is why a consultant, who is the nephew of a distinguished former socialist in the House, said yesterday:
    "I do not believe the health service would be safe in Labour's hands."
    Mr. Hattersley: When the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would not increase VAT, was he giving the House and the country a categorical assurance?
    Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear on Tuesday.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister also made the position categorically clear on 6 April, when he said:
    "No honest Government could give a categorical assurance that they would not increase VAT. No Government ever has, and no Government ever will."
    Was the Prime Minister telling the truth last Tuesday or
    last April?
    Mr. MacGregor: What my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday is:
    "There will be no VAT increase …we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
    That is absolutely clear, and it is in clear contrast to the position of the Labour party, which maintains its high
    spending policies and is all over the place in deciding how to finance them.
    Mr. Hattersley: It is absolutely clear that the Leader of the House has either no authority or insufficient courage to
    say whether that promise was categorical or whether it was

    1069
    what the country believes it to have been—evidence of a Prime Minister panicked into making a promise that he has no intention of keeping. Is not the truth about Tory policy on VAT revealed in the party's latest campaign document—that the way to raise taxes is "Wait until they spend the money as that is the right moment to tax them"?
    Mr. MacGregor: I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear, as we have done on many occasions. It is also clear that in the last two weeks the whole country, as it heard different voices and different noises, has wondered who is speaking for the Labour party. Indeed, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that Labour's recession package should be introduced after the recession had ended.
    Mr. Dykes: Has my hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks, as the public have been able to assess our present policies and our future policy offerings, there has been a very sharp and noticeable increase in our opinion poll ratings? That is not just a coincidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion poll improvement in the past few weeks reflects not only our excellent policy range but the fact that the election is getting closer and the best is yet to come?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree that as we unfold our positive policies over the next few weeks, and as the electorate sees more and more of what Labour is offering—or not offering—what my hon. Friend has suggested will come about.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Cabinet is split from top to bottom over the Prime Minister's policy of using Common Market grants for tax cuts instead of for the provision of help to deprived areas. Will the Leader of the House confirm the report in yesterday's Financial Times that the rules for allocating this money were changed in 1988 with the approval of the Government, and will he give an immediate assurance that the new rules will be obeyed? Why should Britain's areas of highest unemployment suffer because of Tory party internal divisions?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are no internal Tory party divisions. The position on the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that for some years now we have pursued the same policy that the money has been, in the formula applied, additional and is reflected in higher public spending plans, and that it is for the Commissioner to honour the pledge that we have had for years past.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the past few days the widespread support for our plans to seek better-quality services from councils? Has he noticed that much advice has been given to us on how that should be done? Some of the advice is bizarre. Will he confirm that he will reject advice to use as a role model councils such as Lambeth, Liverpool, Hackney and Southwark—in other words, councils which have high borrowing, rotten services and high community charges and which have lost control of their housing stock, and all of which are run by the Labour party?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is clear that nearly all of the 10 worst councils in terms of rent collection and houses left empty are Labour controlled. It is also clear that many of the high-spending authorities are Labour. The country will draw its own conclusion that under a Labour Administration there are great inefficiencies, high spending and high taxation.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and given the obvious confusion among Ministers about the implications of their electoral promises for the future level of value added tax, can the Leader of the House conjure up the actual figure for value added tax when his Government came to office in June 1979, and the level now as they go out of office?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have, of course, in addition undertaken a considerable change—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I intend to answer. We have undertaken a considerable change from direct to indirect taxes, which is absolutely right because it enables many more people to spend their money as they wish. That is the policy which we have pursued consistently, with the result that direct taxation has come down substantially. However, we did not have the very high rates on many goods such as television sets, which are described as luxury goods but are essentials for many people—rates which we inherited and which I understand that the Labour party would consider again.

    May Day
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the May day bank holiday.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    The Government have no plans to change the present public holiday arrangements, although we shall continue to keep the situation under review.
    Mr. Field: Why do we not throw off this hangover of socialism and instead celebrate a free enterprise day, a British export day or, better still, a low taxation day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who think that high taxation is the answer to recession are about to try to convince the electorate that suffocation is a form of first aid?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the question about May day being a bank holiday, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort. Although I know that my hon. Friend is interested in switching it to the autumn, we have no plans to do that because there are different views about it. I think that he will agree nevertheless that on May day, instead of celebrating socialism, we now celebrate the end of socialism.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Lord President of the Council, as a fellow Scot, tell me whether he has had the opportunity to study in depth the implications of the ICM opinion poll?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Sadly, the question is about May day.

    Engagements
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House find time today to plan a journey from south Norfolk to north-west Norfolk to look at the local health services? He is welcome to bring with him Sir Roy Griffiths. He will see that a number of general practitioner practices have become fundholders, that a local NHS trust has already reduced waiting lists by 1,200 in the last year, and that a district authority is about to merge with a neighbour to give itself more clout. Are not those the results of Tory policies working for the benefit of patients?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. The same is happening in west Norfolk, as well as throughout the country. As a result of the reforms, already in a very short period we see improved services, shortened waiting lists, and so on. Interestingly, we are also seeing increasing support for the reforms from the medical profession itself and increasing take-up of them.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he restore to Back Benchers—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the hilarity is about, but please carry on.
    Mr. Redmond: —the right to examine Government legislation and that he stop the appalling use of the guillotine which stifles it?
    Mr. MacGregor: We shall be discussing that matter in a short while. I shall make plain our position on today's business.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is evidence of the growing success of the Government's education reforms that this year 28,800 people have enrolled for teacher training courses—20 per cent. more than last year and the best figure for 15 years? Is that not in stark contrast with the cynical disregard for educational standards shown by those Labour Members who filibustered on the parents charter Bill last night?
    Mr. MacGregor: Later today we shall be able to debate further the great improvement in standards that we are achieving as a result of our reforms. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. I am delighted with the considerable increase in the number coming forward for teacher training. It reflects the fact that we have considerably improved the salary prospects and career prospects of teachers as a result of all the steps that we have taken in recent years.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that although few people in Britain would expect the Prime Minister to match President Yeltsin bottle for bottle, they will find it odd that the Government insist on increasing or doubling Britain's nuclear fire power when both the Russians and the Americans see good reasons for cutting theirs?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I want to make the position clear. We welcome the proposals to reduce the super-power arsenals. They are wonderful news for all of us. We must hope that the current plans are implemented. But let us be perfectly clear about the scale of what is involved. The present arsenal of the former Soviet republics is 27,000 warheads, and it will take them many years to implement the current proposals. Even at the end of that process, they will have thousands of nuclear weapons. Our deterrent involves one boat on patrol at all times with no more than 128 warheads. So the scale is very different. I believe that the whole country thinks that with the uncertainties in the world—in the middle east and elsewhere, as well as in the Soviet Union—and looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is essential that we maintain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

Natural Gas (Imports)
3.32 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the Government's decision to authorise further imports of natural gas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): It has been the Government's object to create the market conditions within which competition can work for the benefit of all participants, suppliers, transporters and consumers. Important progress has been made in Britain. The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 and the Gas Act 1986 opened pipelines to competition on the basis of what is now called third-party access and provided for appropriate regulation by the Office of Gas Supply. Under the regulatory regime established when British Gas was privatised, steps taken in response to identified market problems have led over recent years to a growing number of companies supplying gas to industrial customers in competition with British Gas. Additional measures now being discussed will contribute to this process.
The United Kingdom has large reserves of gas on its continental shelf, and liberalisation of the market has provided a spur to their development. The Government support the European Commission's efforts to bring the benefits of liberalisation to the wider market of the Community and to remove barriers to competition and obstacles to trade. A market in which gas moves freely across frontiers and competes its way freely to final consumers provides the best assurance for all, including the emerging market economies of eastern Europe, the continued development of which will bring the environmental attractions of gas within reach of the widest public.
Until now, the United Kingdom has lacked the necessary gas transport links with the European market. I am pleased to say that several companies have told my Department that they would be interested in building a gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and the continent to enable UKCS gas to reach continental markets in competition with other gas suppliers to continental Europe. Six companies—British Gas, BP, Conoco, Elf, Norsk Hydro and Statoil—have now come together to conduct the first stage of a feasibility study on a gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and Europe.
At the suggestion of the companies, it was decided that the group would benefit from having an independent chairman with experience of the oil and gas business. Mr. Geoffrey H. Chipperfield, CB, former permanent secretary at the Department of Energy and currently permanent secretary and chief executive of the Property Services Agency, has accepted an invitation to chair the study, which is now under way. The Government believe that other companies will wish to participate in the full feasibility study when it is launched, and opportunities for this will be opened later in the year.
At the same time, two proposals for the import of Norwegian gas have been put to my Department. National Power proposes to contract a supply equivalent to the consumption of a single power station. Statoil also proposes to negotiate a supply of gas to an independent power generation project in Britain.
1074
In addition to these developments on exports and imports, BP, Statoil and Norsk Hydro propose to establish a joint venture United Kingdom gas marketing company, which will work for increased gas competition in both the industrial and the power generation markets in Britain. I welcome this move.
These developments will make a significant contribution to the opening up of competition and gas trade. We are confident that United Kingdom gas suppliers will benefit considerably from the liberalisation of gas trade throughout Europe.
Mr. Dobson: This is another fine mess that the Government's shortsighted policies have got the country into. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Gentlemen who are moaning why Britain, of all countries, should have to import more natural gas. The Government have encouraged the dash for gas, which the privatised electricity companies want to burn in power stations. As a result, the demand for gas in this country now exceeds Britain's own natural gas supplies. Where there was abundance, the Government's policies have created shortage.
Will the Minister confirm that, on present plans by the electricity companies, the amount of gas to be burnt in power stations will be as great as that used in the whole of the rest of British industry, and that British industry will have to pay higher gas prices as a result?
Is it not true that gas prices for domestic customers have risen by no less than 14 per cent. in the past two years and will rise still further, because the power companies' demand is driving up the price of bulk supplies of gas and will continue to do so?
Will the Minister tell us how much these additional gas imports will add to the trade deficit? Is it not true that Britain already has a trade deficit in energy and that this decision will make that deficit worse? I hope that the Minister will not quote his Secretary of State's totally misleading statistics in his recent press release, pretending that we have an energy surplus.
Is it not true that, as a result of the Government's policies and the self-same privatised generating companies that want to import natural gas, coal imports last year hit record levels, and that the generating companies plan even more coal imports?
Will the Minister confirm that his Secretary of State recently advocated dependence in future on gas supplies not just from Norway but from the Gulf, the former Soviet Union and Algeria? If so, what price does he give for security of supply?
Finally, the Government keep knuckling under to the selfish demands of the privatised electricity companies. Is it not about time that the Government reminded the bosses of those companies that they should consider the long-term interests of the people of this country instead of just lining their own pockets? If this dying Tory Government will not tell them, the incoming Labour Government will.
Mr. Moynihan: I am surprised by that tirade from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), not least because the pipeline through which the gas will be imported is the Frigg line, which resulted from the Frigg treaty, negotiated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was then Secretary of State for Energy. Also, the production of the Frigg field—which

1075
the right hon. Member for Chesterfield signed for—increased from nothing to a plateau of nearly 10 billion cu m of Norwegian gas per year under the last Labour Government, without any concern for export potential. If one adds together all the gas that we are discussing, the imports could total less than half of the amount which resulted from the Labour Government's desire and drive for imported Norwegian gas. So the House should get that into perspective.
The important thing is that we are announcing opportunities for a highly competitive United Kingdom gas industry to export in markets which are sufficiently attractive to warrant great interest from a large number of companies, and key companies have come forward to undertake a feasibility study. They will be in a position to win long-term contracts when the export link—the interconnector—is built. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was also wrong about the trade deficit in energy, as there is a surplus.
In conclusion, I have this answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions—our objective, if it is to be in the interests of consumers, must be to work towards trade in gas in a genuine free market throughout Europe. We are confident that United Kingdom suppliers will benefit considerably from the liberalisation of the gas trade throughout Europe. Ultimately and most importantly, not only suppliers will benefit, but consumers.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a private notice question and not a statement, although it sounded a little like one. I shall allow questions to continue until 3.55 pm; then we must move on to Business Questions.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my hon. Friends will welcome his statement because the importation of gas will allow more competition in the electricity supply industry and will be good for the environment, because gas produces less carbon dioxide than coal when burned for electricity generation?. Does he recall that, not so long ago, British Gas limited the amount of gas available by contract pricing so that that premium fuel could be conserved? Does he therefore accept that there is a danger in importing more gas—or, even worse, exporting more—
that that valuable chemical may be frittered away in burning rather than being kept as the premium fuel that it truly is?
Mr. Moynihan: On my hon. Friend's first point, it is important to encourage competition in generation. Both the entry and prospect of independent entrants into the market is important to ensure the maximum downward pressure on generating prices. My hon. Friend's question about the environmental impact of gas and the greater use of gas-fired generation is important. The combined cycle gas turbine is a major step forward for the environment. The technology used by the industry is important not merely in terms of high thermal efficiencies but because there are important environmental advantages—the turbines emit no sulphur, have lower emissions of NOx and CO2 than coal-fired power stations and their introduction at the expense of old and inefficient plant will result in greater energy efficiency. It is important for the
1076
House to bear in mind the environmental impact of using gas for electricity generation, as well as the energy efficiency which I mentioned.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that we welcome the liberalisation of the gas market? We think that there should be rapid progress towards a European gas grid, and that we should allow access across frontiers, without hindrance, as soon as possible, including building the interconnector. I hope that he recognises the dangers. First, we must ensure that more access to gas does not mean more use of it, and we should therefore ensure that energy efficiency and conservation are Government priorities. Secondly, the new structure should be honestly and truly competitive and the protected position of British Gas should be broken up into a real competitive market and not defended. Thirdly, we should have a strategy for energy—of which this is a part—and no behind-the-door deals. With those assurances, we will be supportive.
Mr. Moynihan: I agree with all three points—and we need to break up monopolies on the continent as well.
Sir John Hannam: In the wake of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy about setting up a new United Kingdom joint venture gas marketing company, will my hon. Friend confirm that, initially, that company will concentrate on bringing gas from the United Kingdom continental shelf to our home market?
Mr. Moynihan: That is correct.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that today's announcement about the import of gas is bound to cause confusion as the country knows that we are more than self-sufficient in indigenous sources of energy? Does he agree that, as gas prices will increase by about 50 per cent. in the next five or six years, the deal is not a good one for consumers? The country knows that we import 20 million or 30 million tonnes of coal and we are making miners redundant. Gas-fired power stations will result in electricity employees in power stations being made redundant. Therefore, this is not good news. Is it not time that the Government thought out an energy strategy?
Mr. Moynihan: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I agree that an energy strategy is important. That is what we are proposing. What I have mentioned today is part and parcel of that strategy. The liberalisation programme of the European Commission, which we fully support, and the increased competition will benefit consumers in United Kingdom markets. The coal industry is well aware of the competition that it faces for a share of the electricity markets. That is why British Coal has made significant strides towards reducing costs and more than doubled productivity since the 1984–85 National Union of Mineworkers' strike.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that the first Government to import
gas—liquefied petroleum gas propane, which was kept in Britain at the largest refrigerated storage in Europe—was the Labour Government in 1968? They encouraged those imports to take the place of coal, which resulted in miners within the Eastern gas board producing less. I am more

1077
interested in the importation of gas than its exportation in order that we may retain our reserves in the North sea and in Britain generally.
Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of the Labour party in the past. That point was reinforced in relation to importation when the Frigg treaty was negotiated. When talking about proposed imports this afternoon, we are not talking about a new pipeline, but we are aware that we shall need to renegotiate the treaty and possibly amend it. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to the Norwegian Petroleum and Energy Minister stating the Government's readiness to facilitate the imports and undertake negotiations. I believe that that will be done in a spirit of close co-operation with the Norwegian Government.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister confirm that any export pipeline will qualify for relief against petroleum revenue tax in the same way as the central area transmission system that takes gas from Aberdeen to Teesside to generate cheap electricity? Will the Minister confirm that more than £100 million in tax relief is involved in the CATS scheme? Can he think of any other country in Europe, bar Scotland, that is paying international oil companies to take away its most valuable natural resource?
Mr. Moynihan: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's first point in writing so that I may answer it in detail. He asked about the fiscal regime as it applies to exports. There are details on that within the Finance Bill. The petroleum revenue tax is important, as is the gas levy. The gas levy is paid by British Gas in respect of fields contracted to it before 1975, which are not liable to petroleum revenue tax, and so will not affect the proposed export. As I said, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's specific points later.
Sir Trevor Skeet: While welcoming the Government's proposals, may I ask the Minister whether they will lead to the unlocking of many untapped gas wells in the North sea, both on our side and on the Norwegian side? Will there be a reduction in the high price of industrial gas in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Moynihan: Increased competition will have a beneficial effect on the pricing of gas for the United Kingdom industrial sector. There is no doubt that a liberalisation of the marketplace, with a larger marketplace, will be considered attractive by those making long-term investment decisions in the gas sector, particularly in the southern basin. Access to an interconnector with Europe will play an important part in future marketing strategies, so the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks is correct.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Has the Minister conducted an exercise into the proposals using the principles of least cost planning? Rather than build pipelines to Norway and construct power stations that burn gas inefficiently, wasting half the energy value of gas, would it not be wiser to invest that money in energy-efficient ways such as insulating houses and replacing old domestic boilers with new and efficient condensing boilers?
Mr. Moynihan: There is no intention of building new pipelines to Norway.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is the Minister aware that there are several coal-fired power stations in my constituency and that the cost of using domestic coal adds about £1 per week on average to every domestic bill for electricity in this country, according to House of Commons Library figures, compared with the cost of using coal at world prices? Has he any idea how much more money all of my constituents will save on their electricity bills when we begin the major switch from coal to gas?
Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will be aware that the new contracts for coal will be at competitive prices. I believe that the coal industry is well positioned to negotiate effectively and on merit as a result of the substantial improvements in productivity that have occurred. Coal will continue to have an important share in the British power sector for many years to come, but it will do so on merit.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the justification for using scarce chemical feedstock in power stations?
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are plentiful supplies of gas for the United Kingdom —[Interruption.] We are finding more per annum than we are using. In the context of Norway, Algeria and the Soviet Union, there are ample supplies which will make an important contribution to power generation for many decades to come. There is no doubt that, when assessing it in competition with other fuel sources, the environmental benefits must be given serious consideration, and we have obviously done that.
Mr. Peter Rost: Does the Minister accept that large energy users who have been handicapped by a monopoly supplier for far too long will welcome his important anouncement? Will he further accept that, if we do not liberalise the market and connect to the European grid, our competitor countries in Europe will, before long, benefit from substantially increased quantities of cheaper Russian gas to which we shall not have access?
Mr. Moynihan: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Minister aware that while those countries with which he has been dealing and to which he has referred may be willing to trade with Britain, they will wonder how the Government could have engaged in massive additional import costs, having already created an almost obscene level of trade deficit over the last decade? Does he not appreciate that while Ministers repeatedly profess their concern and interest in the coal industry, his announcement will be seen as yet another blow to our coalfield areas and another cause of loss of jobs, with disastrous effects on communities who deserve more consideration than they have been shown by the Conservatives?
Mr. Moynihan: I totally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the effect of coal. How can he talk about massive additional import costs when we are talking about two contracts which together represent well under 50 per cent. of what the last Labour Government negotiated in terms of imports? Indeed, at that time that Government did not even address the export opportunities

1079
which, in terms of trade, could be far more significant in the long run. It is rich for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to face up to the facts of the matter, which I have described to the House.
Mr. Richard Alexander: While accepting that we should not have artificial restraints on any fuel and should not artificially support one fuel as against another, will the Minister bear in mind, following the question from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that our coal industry is trading in the markets and that we should be careful before we give additional support to a fuel which will come in and compete with a fuel that we already have?
Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend would be the first to accept that the future size of the coal industry will depend on the amount of business that it manages to secure with the generators. That in turn will depend on the industry's ability to reduce unit costs and improve productivity. British Coal has already made considerable progress in productivity, which is more than double pre-strike levels. It is committed to securing further substantial improvement. That is the best way forward for coal.
Mr. Frank Doran: Will the Minister confirm that, when he talks about the export pipeline, he is talking about a study? Many studies have been undertaken in the past; no pipeline has been connected to the European mainland before, because it would have been uneconomic. The Minister has simply attempted some window dressing to make today's announcement about imports appear more acceptable. It is much more likely that no such pipeline will ever be built.
What consideration has the Minister given to the position of our indigenous gas producers? What has he to say to the many thousands who work in the gas industry in such places as Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, the north-west and Aberdeen, who will be thinking about the implications of today's announcement for coal industry jobs, and wondering what will happen to their own jobs now that the Government have opened the door to massive imports?
What has the Minister to say about the position of the 80 million gas consumers in this country? Today's decision will invitably lead to much higher gas prices.
Mr. Moynihan: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's view about the prospect for prices. Consumers will undoubtedly benefit from the liberalisation of the United Kingdom and European markets: they will warmly welcome the export opportunities, and, if the outlet comes to fruition—which I certainly hope will happen—it will doubtless have a significant impact on future investment and jobs in the oil and gas sector.
Companies came to us because they saw the commercial opportunities. Six companies expressed interest to the Department, and were keen to get the study under way. There will be opportunities for other companies to join in the study later. [Interruption.] The companies are concerned first and foremost with the feasibility study, not—as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggests from a sedentary position—for the sake of imports, but for the sake of export opportunities in a liberalised market.

Business of the House
3.57 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Motions on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order and the African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order.
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
There will be a debate on motions to approve the supplementary estimate 1991–92 relating to the budget of the European Communities, Class XX vote 1, (House of Commons Paper 182) and the estimates 1992–93 (vote on account) (House of Commons Paper 183).
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill.
Motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports: details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (4th allotted day).
There will be a debate described as "Government responsibility for the continuing recession in British industries" on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 5 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Committee A, document No. 9997/91, relating to Common Market organisation and milk products; Committee B, document No. 6748/91, relating to tobacco products.
[Tuesday 4 February
English revenue support grant reports

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

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

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

4. The Special Grant Report (No. 3)

Wednesday 5 February
Welsh revenue support grant reports

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

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

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

Wednesday 5 February
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community document
9997/91 Whole Milk Marketing
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-vii ( 1991–92)

1081
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community document
6748/91 Advertising Tobacco Products
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-xxix (1990–91), HC 24-i (1991–92) and HC 24-iv (1991–92)]
Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House accept that, in spite of his panic about business last night and his subsequent changes, he has made an important decision in saving the Opposition's Supply day for next Thursday? Will he assure us that the Government will not erode that Opposition time by allowing statements before it, as has happened on previous Supply days? Is it not important to preserve that time so that the House may have the opportunity to debate the Government's policies on industry over the past 13 years, which have, to quote the Confederation of British Industry report, led not only to no recovery in the second half of 1991 but to continuing falls in employment, investment and output? It is important, in the approach to the general election, that, even if the Government will not provide time to debate their record, the Opposition have the opportunity to do so.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the comments in The Times today about the Government's feeble proposals for the future government of London and about the mean and spiteful decision taken, admittedly under a previous Prime Minister, to abolish the Greater London council. Is there not now a wide consensus for the re-establishment of an elected authority for London? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Given what The Times has said, should not we have an opportunity, in Government time, to debate the future of London, its government and economy?
Mr. MacGregor: There was no panic reaction last night; there was a considered and ordered response to the situation that we faced, and I hope to say something more about that in a moment.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Opposition Supply day next Thursday. I am responsive to the need to find time for Supply days. One of the reasons why I was so concerned last night at the way things were going was that at one time I thought that we might not have time for a Supply day next week. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, and I have been happy to meet his wishes on this.
As for a statement, I can only say what I have said before, which is that I cannot predict what matters will arise, but I have noted what he has said.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a CBI report, but I could quote large tracts of CBI reports that make it clear that it believes that the British economy has become much more competitive, that manufacturing industry has greatly improved in performance, that exports are well up, and that the policies that it wants to continue into the 1990s are those which we have been pursuing rather than those of the Labour party. However, I shall not pursue that, because I am anxious to move on rapidly to the next debate to allow the maximum time for it. I hope that the debate on the guillotine motion will be short, so that we can get on to the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman will have sensed from the reaction to his comments on the government of London that he is
1082
far from right when he says that there is a consensus about the abolition of the GLC. That move was widely welcomed. We would welcome a debate on London, but, in view of the pressures on the timetable, I do not think that it is likely to be in the near future.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me make a special plea to the House. Will hon. Members keep away from electioneering matters and deal with the business for next week? As I understand it, what happened last night was the result of lack of time, and if the guillotine motion is passed, the debate tonight will be concluded at 10 o'clock. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will ask questions about the business for next week.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that we spend a large amount of time discussing coal in our debates on energy issues. May we have an early debate on other forms of energy, particularly oil, gas and nuclear power? My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency has the largest onshore field producing those products. Can we debate the implications of the statement made earlier today for the export by rail of gas from my constituency, and whether that can be traded on the European market?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's interest, but it is unlikely that I shall be able to find Government time to discuss that issue in the near future. However, he might be able to find time himself to do so.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Having made up my mind about the difference between May day and St. Andrew's day, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that agreement has been reached about the meetings of the subject days for the Scottish Grand Committee? Is it the case that there will be one full day in Edinburgh and two half days in London? Against the background of constitutional trauma and clamour for change in Scotland, does it not seem ridiculous that not all the Scottish Grand Committee meetings are to be held in Scotland so that people can, rightly, hear what we all have to say?
Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that agreement has been reached on the discussions to take place in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am pleased about that, because it is important that the issues are fully debated. So much of the debate has until now been somewhat unrealistic, and I am anxious to ensure that the issues are properly debated on a realistic basis within the Scottish Grand Committee.
I confirm that one day will be spent in Edinburgh, as I understand it, and two half days here. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the fact that some issues are debated here does not mean that they are not heavily reported in Scotland. There has been an endeavour to reach an agreement which, I hope, will be acceptable to all involved. The important point is that the debates will take place.
Mr. Michael Brown: Is not the way round the problem which was drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to persuade the Opposition to change next Thursday's debate to a debate on the private notice question that they tabled today? They would then have the opportunity to hear about the success of

1083
National Power and PowerGen in my constituency, which are efficiently building two combined cycle gas turbine power stations to ensure that there is no damage to the environment and that the customer gets cheap electricity.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that if he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) catch your eye, Mr Speaker, they will raise that issue and elaborate on it during the debate next Thursday.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Leader of the House consider setting a time for the House to discuss the crises of student grants and student accommodation, especially as they affect polytechnics, such as the polytechnic of Wales, which are now seeking university status and where continual funding crises often mean that student accommodation is being dumped on the local authority as a perennial problem?
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly it would be wrong for me to go into that issue now. I cannot promise a general debate on that subject, but it might be relevant when the Further and Higher Education Bill reaches the Floor of the House. I shall reflect on that, but that seems to be the nearest opportunity.
Sir Peter Hordern: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will make time for the Friendly Societies Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: That was certainly in my mind when I was considering the issue that faced the House last night, because, as I shall elaborate in a moment during the debate on the timetable motion, I take many issues into account when working out the House's business. As I have told the many hon. Members and hon. Friends who have written to me about it, we are making good progress on the drafting of the Bill and I certainly hope to be able to introduce it this Session, but it depends on the other pressures on the timetable.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Leader of the House aware that in Scotland—in Faslane and Coulport—men in a private security company are breaking every rule in the book? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about my constituents and others who have been asked to work more than 10 hours, 20 hours, 30 hours or 40 hours in a row to guard national security and being paid £1.85 an hour for that terrible task? I ask for the Secretary of State to make an urgent statement, because many of our constituents are concerned.
Mr. MacGregor: I doubt whether it will be possible for a statement to be made on that issue next week. The hon. Gentleman has already heard that I am under pressure to ensure that there are no statements on certain days, but I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Opposition are clearly running scared on health, will my right hon. Friend find Government time to stage a debate on health care? Is he aware that in Cannock, where Mrs. Nye Bevan, otherwise known as Jennie Lee, was the Member of Parliament for 25 years, doctors are delighted at the way in which our reforms are working out? Such a debate would enable me to draw to the attention of the
1084
House the fact that in Cannock we have a brand new £22 million NHS hospital which had been promised for 50 years but which was delivered by a Tory Government.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes several good points. I would like to be able to find time for a debate to enable him and my other hon. Friends to elaborate those points. I agree that there is no doubt about the increasing support in the medical profession for our reforms, and the growing recognition of the big increases in capital spending that we have undertaken. I hope that my hon. Friend will find time on many other occasions, not just in such debates, to make those points.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the horrendous and continuing rise in unemployment in the east midlands in general, and in the city of Leicester in particular? Is the Leader of the House aware that, during 1991, unemployment in my constituency rose by 39 per cent., and that it is continuing to rise? Should not that terrible hardship inflicted so unnecessarily on so many people be discussed in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not noticed that we have debated employment issues a great deal in the past few weeks and months—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Unemployment."] We have debated employment and unemployment. It has been said several times that we have one of the highest rates of employment in the European Community, and that Labour policies would greatly exacerbate unemployment. The issue has already often been raised in the House.
Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 585?
[That this House is increasingly aware of how it was misled, and indeed used, as part of a finely calculated and deliberate injustice perpetrated for party political reasons against the honourable Member for Winchester and his constituents on 7th March 1990, by senior Government Ministers and of the abuse of the whipping system on that day to influence the vote of the House whilst sitting in judgment over one of its honourable Members; notes that of the Government Ministers directly involved, namely the Right honourable Members for Surrey East, Mole Valley and Mid Sussex one was a Queen's Counsel and a past Foreign Secretary in charge of MI6 and another, as Home Secretary, is now in charge of MI5; is deeply concerned that if such Ministers, deemed fit to control the secret services of the Crown, can take such blatantly discriminatory and unjust action against a loyal colleague, then no citizen of this land is safe under the law; believes that continued delay by Her Majesty's Government in the face of this obvious case will be seen by the general public either as a cover up or as condoning the gross misconduct of the senior Ministers involved; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act swiftly, before the election, either to bring this matter urgently before the Committee of Privileges or to allow the honourable Member for Winchester to present his case before Parliament in Government time before further injustice is done in this or any future case.]
I also draw to his attention early-day motions 115, 121 —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one early-day motion may be drawn attention to.
Mr. Browne: It is clear that a great and quite deliberate injustice was perpetrated by abusing the privileges and procedures of the House. I first gave notice of that injustice almost a year ago. If the Government, knowing of the case, and of that involving the late Lord Boothby, feel that the people involved are innocent, why does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House continue to resist the idea of bringing a motion before the House so that the matter could be explained, rather than running the risk that every right hon. and hon. Member remains exposed to the same injustice? Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the subject, as a matter of urgency?
Mr. MacGregor: No, because the matter was fully debated on a previous occasion. I have nothing to add at present.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland to make a statement next week about the way in which regional development arrangements disadvantage areas such as mine, which have no assisted area status? Is he aware that a proposed Sweater Shop factory which would have created 200 new jobs was diverted from Hawick to the west coast of Scotland simply because of the availability of regional assistance, which is not available in south-east Scotland? The situation is serious, and it is about time that the Government made a statement and reviewed the situation as a matter of urgency.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that a statement would be appropriate. I recall, when I was at the Department of Trade and Industry examining the issue, that areas without development area status were worried about the shift of jobs to areas with such status. That is one of the reasons why we rationalised development area status.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)? Every reasonable person understands that our reforms are having a beneficial effect on the national health service. Such a debate would give us a chance to consider the statement by Nye Bevan's nephew that the NHS would not be safe in the Labour party's hands.
Mr. MacGregor: Many people have noticed that statement, which comes from someone with considerable practical working experience of the health service, who understands the relevance of the reforms. I have noticed the understandable desire of many of my hon. Friends to debate the health service so that we can explain more of the benefits of our period in office. I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement next week about cold weather payments? Is he aware that in Bradford, for instance, some pensioners receive the £6 that is made available while others do not? Even people living in the same street are being treated differently, with those on one side of the street receiving the payment and those on the other side being denied it. Will he investigate urgently that great injustice and grievance, and ensure that proper arrangements are made so that everyone who is eligible receives the payment promptly?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the fact that we introduced the cold weather payments system and that, in the light of experience, we have improved them considerably. As a result, because of the temperatures in the eligible areas, groups such as the elderly and disabled who receive income support have received automatically a payment of £6. So far this year, that has resulted in the expenditure of approximately £19 million, so the system is clearly operating. If the hon. Gentleman has difficulties in relation to particular constituents, I suggest that he writes in the normal way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Keith Raffan: In view of the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee is to debate the constitutional question and the implications of devolution, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Welsh Grand Committee will be given a similar opportunity to discuss those matters as they relate to Wales?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that those matters can be debated in the same way as they are being debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. If he wishes to raise particular points, I am sure that he will find opportunities to do so.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House please find time next week to debate the question of RECHAR? We have had a series of unsatisfactory ministerial statements on RECHAR and it is clear that the Government are cheating some areas of money that is rightly theirs. It is important that the matter be brought before the House so that we can examine it closely and scrupulously.
Mr. MacGregor: I disagree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman's charge. The responsibility now lies with the Commissioner.
Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the impersonation of Conservative Members to the press for political purposes? Does he agree that it is a most serious matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that I shall need further notice of my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have noticed early-day motion 51 asking for a posthumous pardon for Derek Bentley. It has been signed by 191 hon. Members of all parties throughout the United Kingdom.
[That this House welcomes the book To Encourage the Others by David A. Yallop, calling for an independent public inquiry into the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1952; requests the Home Secretary to set up the inquiry as a matter of urgency; hopes that such a request will lead to a posthumous pardon; and feels that this will end a grave miscarriage of justice which leaves a permanent blot on the British judicial system—the hanging of an innocent man.]
Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to speed up the police inquiry so that we can debate the matter in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will welcome the opportunity to debate Scotland's

1087
constitution in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am sure that he realises that constitutional matters are clearly important to the House, the Union and the unitary Parliament. As there has been a decline in the support for an assembly with legislative and tax-raising powers in Scotland and a rise in demands for independence, is it not about time that the House debated fully what socialist nationalism really means?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I notice that the polls to which reference has been made have shown declining support for an assembly with tax-raising powers. A poll in an Aberdeen newspaper today shows that that support has fallen even further. I suspect that that is a result of the fact that a spotlight has now been put on some of the implications of that proposal, which is why I am keen to have a wider debate on other aspects of the question. I also recognise that, because of the major constitutional matters involved, not only Scottish but many English Members of Parliament would wish to participate in that debate. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request, but, for the moment, the right step is the one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House has mentioned a debate next Wednesday in European Standing Committee B on tobacco products. Will he confirm that this is a proposal to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship? Will he tell the House when the Government are likely to table the motion for that debate? Is he aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation has issued a number of reports on this matter, the latest of which is published today, contains the summarised views of 40 organisations concerned and will be available in the Vote Office at once as a separate document?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said about the document now available. I cannot immediately confirm to him when the motion will be tabled, but, as he knows, we always endeavour to get that done as quickly as possible.
Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend has said that next week a European Standing Committee will consider milk and milk products. Will he find another opportunity for the House to debate agriculture and farm incomes, bearing in mind the continuing uncertainty of the GATT negotiations and EC reform proposals? Is this not a matter of widespread concern in which positive Government policies contrast sharply with the absence of any worthwhile strategy among the parties on the Opposition Benches?
Mr. MacGregor: We had a debate before Christmas on these matters. As a former Minister of Agriculture, I am keen to have them debated as often as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the difficulties is still the uncertainty surrounding the GATT negotiations, and we hope that they will succeed very soon. That may be an appropriate time to have either a further statement or a debate in the House, when some of the points that my hon. Friend has made can be brought out.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware of the grave concern that is being expressed about the British merchant fleet, a concern that
1088
is even expressed in the professional papers, particularly about bulk carriers, many of which have been described as rust buckets sailing the ocean or as disasters waiting to happen? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on these matters so that the British merchant fleet can be debated here?
Mr. MacGregor: I very much doubt that a statement is appropriate next week, but I will draw the point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I am aware of the pressure on time, but can my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the affairs of the Royal Life Insurance company, one of whose agents, a Mr. Kissane, has swindled about 500 people out of several thousand pounds each? Does he agree that a debate might bring pressure to bear on all concerned to come to a settlement as soon as possible and restore their life savings to a number of people?
Mr. MacGregor: I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says. Without knowing the details, I cannot comment on whether a debate would accelerate a solution of the problems. I cannot give Government time for a debate, but my hon. Friend might consider whether the opportunities available to him should be used to deal with the point that he has raised.
Mr. James Lamond: Next week the Government must give their response to a finding by the European Community, after a three-year investigation, that dumping of cotton and polyester yarn has been proved against Turkey, Brazil and Egypt. During the three years that this has taken to consider, 31 spinning mills have closed, with a loss of 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. Naturally, those who are employed in the industry and the employers are very anxious that we give a prompt and positive response to the proposals to stop the dumping, but when I telephoned the Minister's office this morning I was told that no response had so far been prepared. Will the Leader of the House ensure that this is treated as a matter of urgency because of the number of people whose jobs are involved?
Mr. MacGregor: I will discuss the point with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a statement next week from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs so that hon. Members can tell him how pleased we are at his announcement today that from now on all electricial appliances must have moulded-on plugs? This will be widely welcomed, particularly by the disabled and the elderly, and the House should have a chance to give him the congratulations that are his due.
Mr. MacGregor: I know of my hon. Friend's involvement in this matter, and I am sure that a great deal of credit is due to him. I hope that we shall all do what he advises to make sure that the Government's position is widely known.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Leader of the House address the appalling plight of 62 non-haemophiliac patients, one of whom is a constituent of mine, who have contracted the HIV virus as a consequence of treatment in the national health service?

1089
There seems to be appalling discrimination in that this small group of people do not receive any compensation while others do. May we have an urgent statement from Ministers before more of these tragically unfortunate people lose their lives?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the issue and sympathise with the plight of those who have been infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusions. I think that the matter has been debated in the House and considered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the House decided not to support the principle of no-fault compensation for medical accidents. If the NHS is proved negligent in a court, it accepts its liability to pay damages.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. I fear that it will not be possible to call all those hon. Members who wish to ask questions, because we must move to the guillotine motion by 4.30. I ask for brief questions, and I shall call as many hon. Members as I can in the remaining five minutes.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Did my right hon. Friend see the front pages of The Star and The Sun yesterday which expressed concern about the misuse of ecstasy in the north-west, and especially on Merseyside, where seven young people have died and where a drug centre is using Merseyside regional health authority funds to distribute a leaflet encouraging young people to take ecstasy, a class A drug? May we have time next week to debate this matter and express our concern?
Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We should all be grateful to those two newspapers for highlighting the issue. I do not know whether we can have a debate on the matter, but I hope that it has now been clearly drawn to the attention of the public.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I again ask the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement next week on the proposed bridge to the Isle of Skye, the local planning inquiry for which is now under way? Not least among the problems are the difficulties that objectors encounter through not having public funding to enable them to present their views and have proper legal representation. Another difficulty is the absence of a published environmental impact assessment by the Scottish Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State to explain those matters?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that a statement would be appropriate and, as the House realises, I am under great pressure about next week's business. We have a heavy programme. However, I will again draw the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May we have a debate next week on whether the initiation of changes in the law with regard to membership rules for working men's clubs, a highly sensitive issue, should be invested in the unelected, unaccountable Commission for Racial Equality rather than in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that we can have a debate on that matter next week, and my hon. Friend must find other ways to raise it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on regional policy? Would it not be quite improper for Volvo Bus to close a major bus plant in Workington, which has received much taxpayers' money in regional grants, and move to Irvine in Scotland and receive taxpayers' money in the form of regional assistance?
Mr. MacGregor: I recall that there are rules about regional development grants, but I do not know how they apply in this case. It seems to me that the point could be raised by the hon. Gentleman in next Thursday's debate.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House further consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about cold weather payments? In any debate about that matter, we would say that it is most unfortunate that the temperature has to drop to zero or below for seven consecutive days before any payment is made and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that such payment is made only to those on income support. It is deplorable that hundreds of thousands or more pensioners, many of them on the lowest possible income, are suffering in this cold weather and are not getting a penny.
Mr. MacGregor: Such schemes were not available during the period of office of the Labour Government. In addition, there have been very substantial improvements in income support and in social security arrangements generally.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be relevant, in next Thursday's debate, to raise the success of the policy of contracting out? Perhaps he has noticed that, in the latest redraft of the Labour party's policies on London, there seems to be acceptance of contracting out to private companies and, indeed, to the London boroughs. Surely those are the very things that the Labour party intends to try to replace.
Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend were to catch your eye next Thursday, Mr. Speaker, it would be highly relevant that he should make a contribution on these points.
Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend make time to debate the desirability or otherwise of regional assemblies with tax-raising powers? In the north-west—Stockport in particular—there is concern about how horrendous a regional assembly dominated by left-wing Manchester and militant Liverpool would be.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I pointed out earlier, the discussion of the constitutional position in Scotland—a debate that is about to take place in the Scottish Grand Committee—has much wider implications, involving, in respect of a number of issues, everyone in England and Wales. I hope that in that debate those implications will be made clear. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that those who are putting forward the idea of regional assemblies are doing so for the purpose of getting themselves out of a hole in their own policies and that there is absolutely no support in England for it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I dislike curtailing business questions, but I have managed to call those who were not called last week, and I shall do likewise next week.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we are not going to have a rash of points of order. If this is a genuine point of order, the hon. Gentleman may make it.
Mr. Dalyell: It is a genuine point of order relating to the drafting of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which is to be taken next Wednesday. A problem arises when both Front Benches agree on something but others have doubts. I cannot complain about the Minister of State, Scottish Office, as he has been extremely courteous about the many queries that I have put to him. However, he said that he would take away clause 48, which is the same as section 77 of the Education Act 1944, and ask the parliamentary draftsmen to come up with a solution. Some of us think that this may be mission impossible. The crucial point for you, Mr. Speaker, is when we are going to see this key amendment. The whole attitude to the Bill will depend, first, on the amendment that is produced and, secondly, on whether we shall have time next week to consult vice-chancellors and others as to its acceptability to them. I wonder whether this matter could be raised.
Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to look at the amendments to the Bill, but I shall bear carefully in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: During the questions arising from last Tuesday's statement on trade union reform, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) bellowed from a sedentary position that I was sponsored by Lloyd's. As, for some reason, this statement was considered sufficiently significant not only to enter the Hansard record but also to be broadcast by the BBC in "Yesterday in Parliament", may I take this opportunity to put the record straight? Regrettably, Lloyd's has never considered it worth its while to sponsor me. Indeed, sadly—unaccountably perhaps—no one has ever considered it worth his while to sponsor me. Unlike the hon. Member for Workington, I am not sponsored by a union. As he has such a successful track record in securing sponsorship, perhaps he will put me in touch with any other generous sponsors that he knows of.
Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that he is sponsored by his constituency.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to say his piece, perhaps the record should be put straight. I am sponsored, but, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know, I receive from my union no moneys—no personal remuneration, no out-of-pocket expenses. In the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) declares, under "Trades or Professions", that he is a member of Lloyd's
Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a sponsorship.
Mr. Oppenheim: I should like to make a point very briefly, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman does not know

1093
the difference between being a name at Lloyd's, which these days, regrettably, generally costs one money, and being sponsored, which means receiving money, it is not surprising that he is on the Opposition Benches. Presumably the union that sponsors him expects something for the money that it pays.
Mr. Speaker: May I have a point of order that I can answer, please?
Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order as a genuine friend, not a special friend.
Question No. 4 to the Prime Minister today was a closed question about May day. Normally, following your reasonable practice, you call a Member from one side and then the other. Therefore, there was an opportunity for those of us who are interested in May day to ask a question. Reasonably, you chose to call the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). It quickly became obvious that the hon. Lady had made a mistake, which is easily done and has been done by most of us; she thought that it was an open question. On reflection, would it not have been fairer if you had then called another Opposition Member instead of letting our opportunity go, simply because the hon. Lady had made an understandable mistake? We were all punished because she had not read the Order Paper correctly.
Mr. Speaker: What might have been fair in the hon. Gentleman's view would have been unfair to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), whose question I just managed to reach. It is a question of balance.

Education (Schools) (Allocation of Time)
4.35 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Education (Schools) (Allocation of Time)

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (2) Stand Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Order of proceedings
  2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
  Dilatory Motions
  3. No dilatory Motions with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Private business
  4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Question (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government he made to the Bill:

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

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

  Supplemental orders
  6.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the

  1095
  provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion, made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  7. Nothing in this Order shall—

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

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

  Recommittal
  8.—(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  9. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Education (Schools) Bill.
  The whole House knows that we have a very full programme, involving both Houses and a great deal of work. Irrespective of when the election comes, the Session is bound to be shorter than usual, with no overspill in the autumn.
  I have frequently made clear in business questions the difficult balancing act required in managing this Session's business in the House. Hon. Members on both sides press for additional time to debate subjects of great importance. Many days have to be allocated to requirements enjoined upon us by Standing Orders. The Opposition press, understandably, for their rightful allocation of Supply days. I always have to find time to accommodate additional legislation, and I have been trying to find time to enable us to deal with the Friendly Societies Bill.
  Throughout the Session, I have tried to balance the requests with the need to get the Government's business through and to ensure that the House has adequate time to consider all legislation. It is my job as Leader of the House to manage business in the interests of the whole House, while at the same time endeavouring to get the legislation through in an orderly manner.
  The Education (Schools) Bill had full discussion in Committee over 15 sittings and 36½ hours. In all previous discussions on this week's business, the Opposition, whether through their education spokesmen or through the usual channels, never asked for more than one day on Report and Third Reading, so we had no hint that there was any difficulty until we were well into the proceedings yesterday, when they made it clear that they had reservations. They did not seem to know what concessions they wanted or what their concern was. That is certainly how it seemed. Therefore, it seemed to me that it was in the interests of the whole House to make the change that I
  1096
  made. It allows two full days to complete Report and Third Reading of the Bill instead of one day. I think that that is a generous response.
  The timetable motion provides for ordered debate of the Bill and minimises the impact on other business this week and next. I repeat that we have now given two days to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. It is important to proceed without delay to the real matter of debate, which is the substance of the Bill. I hope that the House will deal briefly with the motion and that the whole House can resume the debate, as I believe it wishes.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that the motion is a simple guillotine motion for a closure of all the remaining new clauses and amendments by 10 o'clock. I am not making any comment on that. Can the Leader of the House give some assurance, both to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who has tabled amendments, and to me that amendments tabled by Back Benchers who are not spokesmen for their parties on these matters have a chance of being debated, and that there has not been a secret carve-up of the time between now and 10 o'clock which excludes the consideration of all the amendments on the amendment paper?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of any carve-up. I am anxious to move straight on to the Bill so that as many amendments as possible can be considered and debated during the rest of the day. That is why I commend the motion to the House.
  4.39 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: There was no need for the Leader of the House ever to have made his business statement last night or to have moved the guillotine motion today. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about a carve-up. The Leader of the House is responsible for another phrase ending in "up", but it is not "carve-up".
  The origins of the dispute lie first and foremost in the fact that the Government have no mandate for the proposals in the legislation. None of the measures in the Bill was in the Conservative party's election manifesto. Secondly, some of the provisions of the Bill are plainly stupid. It is increasingly clear that even the Secretary of State for Education and Science cannot justify what he is doing in respect of the inspectorate.
  Important issues are at stake which affect the future standard and quality of our children's education. It is perfectly legitimate for all Opposition parties—I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—to want to examine those issues in detail. If the Conservative party had any stomach for the debate and any support for their arguments, the debate could have continued last night and could have been concluded by now. We could have continued with the important business of today and next week.
  As some Conservative Members—I absolve the Leader of the House at least of this—have charged us with filibustering, let us examine what we were due to consider yesterday. Thirty-one Government amendments, 44 Labour amendments and some amendments from the Liberal Democrats were tabled. During the debate, 13 Labour Members, nine Conservative Members and one Liberal Member spoke. That was because my hon. Friends

  1097
  moved several new clauses. During that time, there were 53 Labour interventions and 40 Conservative interventions. The longest speech of all was made by the Secretary of State. So any argument about abuse of the time available falls flat on its face. The Secretary of State spoke for almost 40 minutes at one point. Well might he smile about those bogus charges about the Opposition not wanting to get on with the important matters for debate.
  Not only were speeches made from the Government Benches but several speeches made by Conservative Members were important criticisms of the provisions of the Bill. I refer to the interventions made by the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison). They asked important questions about the implications of the Secretary of State's proposals. The one exception was the patsy type of speech by the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who smiles at me from a sedentary position.
  The Bill confuses the roles of the regulators—the inspectors—with that of the providers of the service—the schools and the teachers—by allowing the latter to pick their own watchdog. That is far too cosy a relationship for Opposition Members to accept, and it is contrary to the flow of argument that we have heard from the Government and their supporters for many years in respect of the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Water Services, the Office of Electricity Regulation or the National Rivers Authority. Those regulators are all separated from the organisations that they are supposed to scrutinise in the public interest.
  Yet we are told in respect of our children's education—as I often say, it is our children's education, not that of Conservative Members' children—that a cosy little relationship should be allowed between the schools and their inspectors. It is rather like mice choosing their own cats. It is a Tom and Jerry type of relationship. There will be cosy little get-togethers among people who want to cuddle up to each other. There is no way that anyone can sustain the argument that that is proper independent scrutiny of important aspects of education. So we make no apology for opposing the measure and wanting to deal in detail with the implications for our schools and children.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend might be going a little far to suggest that the relationship is a corrupting one, but does he agree that in the eyes of parents and perhaps the general public it might be potentially corrupting of otherwise disinterested professionals?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend must choose his own words, but I can certainly see the Bill as a recipe for an ineffectual relationship. That is principally why the head teachers themselves do not want the proposals. They have stated clearly that the proposed relationship is not the type that they want to see develop between head teachers, their schools and the inspectorates. Of course, many parents share that view.
  The real reason for the timetable motion is nothing to do with proper scrutiny or debate. The Leader of the House is in a panic because of the Government's hidden election timetable. It is all consistent with a general
  1098
  election on 9 April. I hope that that is the case. Even on yesterday's opinion poll result, the Government will be out of office, and the sooner that happens, the better.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science has been confronted in interviews and debates many times, most recently this morning on breakfast television, about the aspect of his legislation that I have described. He has refused to answer directly how he can possibly justify it. I do not suspect that we shall get any more clarity from him about it today. But we shall try.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): If a school in Lambeth chooses between two inspectors, it chooses between two inspectors who are independent of it and detached from the provider. The Labour alternative is that Lambeth schools should have no choice and should be inspected only by Lambeth council, which runs them. The provider would inspect the provider. The argument used as the basis for the daft filibuster last night does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
  Dr. Cunningham: Under the Secretary of State's proposals, the inspectors would be paid by the school that they are engaged to inspect. There is a customer-client relationship there. To say that that is a road to independent scrutiny of what is going on in schools is ridiculous. The inspectors will be employed by the school.
  As the Secretary of State has unwisely come back to the point about filibustering, I remind him that the longest single speech yesterday was made by him. He is the last on to complain about Labour Members questioning his proposals. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said about the proposal, I refer him to what the hon. Member for Buckingham said yesterday on that very issue:
  "If a school is inspected by this or that type of inspector and receives full marks for its work but does not merit those marks, that will become clear over time and as a result of trial and error."—[Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 964.]
  What the right hon. Gentleman is proposing yet again is more experiments with our children's education; more hitty-missy approaches to the Government's policy dogmas. That is what his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham believes, and that is what we believe, too.
  We intend to put the most searching spotlight on this further ridiculous and unnecessary experimenting with our children's education standards and with their schools, because this is a matter of great interest to the people of this country, and rightly so.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The accusation that we were filibustering yesterday is hardly borne out by what happened on the Government Benches. At one stage, the lack of enthusiasm for this Bill was evidenced on the Tory Back Benches. There was only a part of the Tory Front-Bench team in the Chamber; there was not a single Back Bencher to continue the debate. Hon. Gentlemen went out frantically to drag Back Benchers in from the corridors. They know that what I am saying is abolutely true.
  Mr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that hon. Gentlemen will be in the Lobbies tonight when the votes come, but they demonstrate by their absence now their lack of commitment to the state education system.

  1099
  The Government have broken the back of the British economy, as evidenced yet again by the Confederation of British Industry report, the Engineering Employers Federation, the building employers and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. What the Government are about here again is another dogmatic experiment with education in our schools. This legislation ought to be stopped. We will do our best to prevent its getting on the statute book. That is what these debates are all about.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. David Madel: I regret that we have to have a guillotine on this important matter. I and, I think, many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, prefer it when the Front Benches can reach a voluntary agreement as to how much time we should spend on any particular Bill. However, being faced with a guillotine very much concentrates minds and gives Ministers the chance to reply very specifically to questions from both inside and outside the Chamber.
  I did not think that yesterday's debate wandered very much, but it did give rise to one very interesting matter in relation to the inspection of schools, which affects Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison) said:
  "the county of Buckinghamshire …has produced the highest level of GCE passes of any of the shire counties in England and the second highest of any of the English local authorities."—[Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 976.]
  One of the reasons why Buckinghamshire children have done so well is that so many of them cross over into my constituency in Bedfordshire to take the GCE in two Leighton Buzzard upper schools—Van Dyke and Cedars—both extremely good schools, I congratulate the Government on loosening the rigidity between the local education authorities, which allows young people in Buckinghamshire to cross over and makes Buckinghamshire parents very happy. When the Government are re-elected I hope that, as education develops, they will be able to make it more precise and obvious that the money really follows the pupil.
  I know that Buckinghamshire young people will continue to cross the border into Leighton Buzzard for their GCE, so obviously we want to see in Bedfordshire more evidence of the money following the pupil. That is for the next Conservative Government and the next Education Secretary. I merely mention it in passing because a little wandering in the debate did bring in a very important Buckinghamshire-Bedfordshire point.
  As I have said, the guillotine concentrates the mind. The moton says:
  "The proceedings on consideration and Third reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock."
  One of the reasons why I am glad that we are to get this matter dealt with today is that there appears to be an unclear position with regard to inspection of schools. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who I am very glad to see in his place, wrote to Dr. R. Morris of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities earlier this month and said in one part of his letter, referring to the local education authorities:
  "They will also be able to go into schools in connection with carrying out their broad statutory duties for the provision of education."
  1100
  That raises a very interesting point, because parents and friends of schools would like to see the LEAs going in to look at deterioration of the buildings; failure to deliver the national curriculum; very poor examination results; the conduct of a particular teacher; the conduct of the governors and the head; alleged financial mismanagement; failure to provide school leavers with guidance and help towards their future careers or towards getting places in a university or a polytechnic; and failure to investigate parental complaints.
  Those are specific points. They are all matters which, in my view, are part of a local education authority's broad statutory duty for the provision of education. I understand that if any or all of those points were raised by a parent or a friend of the school, the education authority would be able to go into the school.
  Mr. Jack Straw: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with very great care. Is he aware that the Association of County Councils, on which his own county council and Buckinghamshire and many other Conservative county councils are represented—indeed, the association is controlled by the Conservatives—says that the removal of the power to inspect under section 77(3) of the Education Act 1944 will greatly diminish the local authority's ability to intervene in a school that is falling below standard?
  Mr. Madel: I am in very close touch with Bedfordshire county council, and the hon. Gentleman is right; it is concerned about this, too. I think that what I will conclude by saying will answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I do not think that the House of Commons wants to get into an argument about when an inspection is not an inspection. One could play around with the word ad nauseam; then, the next thing that we would be arguing about is the place of the potato in English folklore. We want something very specific, which is why I welcome this specific day for the Bill.
  If any of those specific points that I have listed came up, I believe, on the basis of what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his letter, that the local education authority could go into the school. It would be carrying out its broad statutory duty for the provision of education. Every one of those specific points refers to the provision of education. I hope that, before 10 o'clock, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be able to assure me specifically that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his letter to Dr. Morris would allow local education authorities, if approached by parents or friends of the school, to go into the school to deal with any one of the specific points that I have raised.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I rarely speak or am active on guillotine motions and resulting business arrangements on timing, because in general I have long been in favour of timetabling all Bills from the start. My experience over many years is that Standing Committees and other similar Committees on the Floor of the House, with exceptions that I will come to in a moment, never give Bills the due consideration that they ought to have. One of the reasons why I was in favour of televising the House and Committees was that I thought

  1101
  that it might be a good idea for the public to see Standing Committees, with Ministers doing their mail and others trying to hold up the business.
  With regard to the Bill before us today, education is a most important issue and I doubt whether the House, despite the intentions of the few who are actively interested, has looked at the problems that have arisen.
  So in general I am in favour of timetabling from the start. I understand the dangers. I understand the problems in hung Parliaments, and all the rest of it. I had the dubious pleasure, after Second Reading, of trying to pilot the House of Lords reform Bill through the House many years ago, when we found that the divisions were on both sides of the House and any idea that one could timetable or guillotine soon went out of the window.
  For the reasons that I have given, I am sceptical of the existing system and therefore I rarely speak on such motions. Yesterday afternoon and evening, I sat in the Chamber because I am interested in the subject of the inspectorate. I owe a great deal to my education many years ago, as I come from the background of a Welsh mining village, where a high proportion of us ended up with university degrees—a far higher rate than in many posher, salubrious, suburban areas. I am even more interested these days, not because of my children who are grown up, but because I am interested in special education. All Governments have failed to deal properly with that, despite all their Ministers' words. I question whether the inspectorate is giving it due consideration.
  I listened carefully to the debate on the inspectorate yesterday. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will know, last century the inspectorate played an important part in developing Welsh education, not necessarily by visiting each school to give its view, although no doubt that played a part but by creating a philosophy—in the Matthew Arnold sense of the term—for the development of education which, frankly, one does not get from party manifestos. When I read that junior Ministers are interfering with the curriculum, I get worried, because I do not think that they know very much about it. There are times when I think that other people know little about it, but politicians are the last people to pontificate about the curriculum, and I hope that teachers and inspectors are concerned about it.
  I sat in on the debate yesterday because of my great interest in the role of the inspectorate and in what will happen if schools and local education authorities, however affluent, pay little attention to special needs. What good can a tied inspectorate do?
  I saw no example of filibuster yesterday afternoon and evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunninghan) said, the Secretary of State spoke for a long time—until about 6 o'clock. If there was any urgency in getting the Bill through, the Secretary of State did not show it. There were many interventions. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who has a great interest in education, spoke for a long time, as did other hon. Members on both sides of the House. There was something odd about the whole procedure because there was no great urgency. I began to realise that something was very wrong.
  1102
  The guillotine was not decided at 9.55 pm last night, when the first frisson went through the Government Front Bench and Ministers began to pass around bits of paper and to consult properly, but earlier.
  The only reason that I am speaking is that I do not believe that the guillotine motion has anything to do with speeding up the Education (Schools) Bill because time was being wasted. It is being used simply to speed things up for the general election.
  If polling day is 9 April, a certain amount of time is needed to get business through the House, and that is all that the guillotine is for. That is what happened last night. Possibly, the delay in the English and Welsh revenue grants is to enable the Government to deal with the problem of poll tax bills which will be plopping through doors shortly.
  I am opposed to what is happening and shall readily vote tonight. It is not because I am not interested in timetabling—although it is too late now, as I shall be leaving the House shortly. I hope that one day there will be pre-timetabling in the House, except for important and constitutional Bills. However, this motion is to do with the election. I must tell the Leader of the House that, if the election is to be on 9 April—everyone is planning for it, buying space to advertise and organising; one hears it from sources in the advertising business who know what the Opposition and the Government are doing—then, for the good of the House, for heaven's sake announce the date and let us do business in a sensible fashion during the next six weeks, instead of proceeding in this way and covering up the reality.
  We are in an election period and the guillotine motion is for election purposes. It has nothing to do with the inspectorate. What the Government are doing about the inspectorate is extremely foolish and flies in the face of its proud history.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: If ever there was a case for the timetabling of Bills, it is the shenanigans over this Bill.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Nonsense.
  Mr. Nelson: I believe that that is the case, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was right to call for the timetabling of Bills. I notice that a great many people were nodding when he suggested that, possibly including the hon. Lady, who should not be so argumentative because I am agreeing with him. It is a good idea. I have thought so through five years of opposition and 12 years on the Government side.
  The real initiative for timetabling Bills must come from Opposition parties.
  Mr. Don Dixon: Why?
  Mr. Nelson: Because Governments obviously want to timetable their Bills and get their business through as soon as possible. All hon. Members on both sides of the House have an obligation to scrutinise legislation but, understandably, Opposition Members will have more interest in trying to delay it, because if they do not have the votes to defeat the Government, they will try to protract discussion.

  1103
  Whichever party is in opposition next time, let us try to decide early to timetable more Bills. Let us not have pious words about timetabling Bills every time that there is a debate on a guillotine motion, only to find that nothing happens. The next Opposition party should agree more timetabling of Bills early in the new Parliament, and we should keep to it.
  The reason for timetabling is not to satisfy the Government and Opposition Front Benches, but to protect the interests of Back Benchers. We lose out. Our amendments do not get proper consideration on Report or in Committee if there is a timetable motion. Invariably, new clauses will come first in the order of business on Report. Official Government and Opposition motions can crowd out amendments tabled by Back Benchers. There is not adequate opportunity for those of us who feel strongly about aspects of a Bill to raise them.
  The answer lies in our own hands. In the next Parliament, let us do something about it, for the sake of Parliament, better legislation and refining legislation more adequately. In the House we serve no one's interests—not the Government's nor those of the people that we seek to represent—by cursory examination of Bills. As a result, hon. Members are left with the option of trying to inveigle their points in an artificial way. Important issues affecting our constituents' schooling and the structure and scrutiny of education are introduced in a wholly artificial and improper manner. The proceedings of the House should not be used for that purpose.
  I want a change in the attitude of the Government to guillotines and in the Opposition's attitude towards timetabling. I am worried about the guillotine motion and the extent to which it will inhibit discussion on important matters later. Some of us will be unable to raise matters about which our constituents feel strongly.
  Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) mentioned in interventions yesterday a situation in my county of West Sussex which is replicated in many other local authority areas, there should be an opportunity—within order—to raise matters of concern and to obtain assurances from Ministers about them.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) mentioned an important issue which has not received satisfactory answers in Committee, nor is likely to, in what will remain of the Report stage after the guillotine. There is no guarantee that we shall move beyond discussion of new clause 6 and the amendments taken with it. Opposition Members may well decide to make some progress and we may get to new clause 9 and to others further down the list, we cannot be sure about that. As a result, we have no other means of raising important matters.
  Labour Members may state that it is the Government's fault for introducing the guillotine. It is not. I should like to have had time to discuss such matters, but the paucity of progress made yesterday, the long speeches and the many amendments which had to be considered left the Government with no option but to move a guillotine motion today. M ore rapid progress could have been made.
  I shall not now be able to raise in the debate a subject that is of deep concern to my local education authority in west Sessex. Local education authorities carry out inspections more frequently than the four-year cycle that is likely to be provided in the Bill. I hope that, at the end
  1104
  of the debate on the guillotine motion, it will be clear that more frequent inspections can also be carried out. That view is shared by five other hon. Members from West Sussex as well, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is in his place. Sussex Members and others have received strong representations from the governors and head teachers of numerous schools expressing great concern that inspections should take place only once every four years. In that period, negative and positive changes may take place to effect a school's performance. It is important that more frequent inspections should sometimes be possible in order to give continuing reassurance to parents and local charge payers about the educational and management standards of the school and the cost-effectiveness of the provision.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman seemed to miss an important point when he said that head teachers were worried. The National Association of Head Teachers is with us. It does not want the Bill. We have found almost no teachers' organisations or teachers who want it. They do not understand the Bill; we Labour Members understand it and do not want it. The hon. Gentleman should not leave such issues out.
  Mr. Nelson: I was not dealing with that important overall view, which the hon. Gentleman also expressed at length yesterday. My understanding of the Bill is that it seeks to improve the inspection performance of the worst authorities in the country by insisting on a minimum number of regular inspections of schools. That is wholly laudable, and I suspect that it does not divide the parties. Everyone wants to achieve that.
  An issue that the guillotine motion will not allow us to discuss does not involve improving the average standards, but the fact that those local authorities that already exceed the minimum standard and conduct inspections more frequently than once every four years will be required to lower their standards. I am not happy about that. West Sussex has no quarrel with the Bill's basic objectives of raising the overall quality of schools' teaching and and attainment by changing the inspection system requiring all schools to be inspected periodically. The shortcomings and infrequency of inspections in many areas must detract from the quality of schooling, and the Bill clearly aims to raise the performance of the worst local education authorities.
  However, the position in many parts of the country, including west Sussex, is different. We have more frequent reviews and inspections. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will vouch for the effectiveness of the scheme in West Sussex as only last week he commented most warmly on it. Every school has its management and national curriculum provision once a year by inspectors. There is a rolling programme of whole school inspections and detailed subject department inspections.
  That more frequent inspection pattern enables better guarantees to be given to parents and local charge payers of the standards and effectiveness of schools. It success is partly demonstrated by the fact that school examination results in West Sussex ranked third in the country according to The Times performance league.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State will understand why there is reluctance to change a system that has served us well and to reduce the frequency of inspections from once every year to once every four years. Schools should

  1105
  be able to request more frequent inspections so that the best practice of a few is not brought down to the standard practice of the many. Such a policy should commend itself to the Government and my constituents, and I will be perplexed if it is not accepted today.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely difficult to explain to parents in our constituencies that the interests of their children are being better served by having inspections once every four years rather than once a year as at present?
  Mr. Nelson: I feel bound to agree. It is extremely difficult for us to support a structural change that will effectively and perceptively reduce the frequency and radically change the rolling nature of the inspection system.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but does he accept that the position is even worse? Under the Government proposals, not only will the cycle of inspection in West Sussex be reduced from one inspection every year to one inspection every four years, but if problems arise in a school between those inspections, the local authority will have no power to go into that school and investigate the problems.
  Mr. Nelson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come to that later. It is one of the glaring lacunae which we shall be unable to debate due to yesterday's performance and the necessity for a guillotine motion today.
  To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, the only arguments that I have heard against my proposition that we should be able to continue with better practices and more frequent inspections if we so want is that it might lead to duplication and would provide an inadequate basis for performance comparison. It is also argued that a rolling programme of inspections is inferior to a full-blown, big-bang inspection once every four years.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have some sympathy with the West Sussex case, and I respect my hon. Friend's views, but I know that he would not wish to overstate the case. I hope that he appreciates that, under the Bill, the inspections every four years on the basis of the criteria drawn up by Her Majesty's chief inspector will not be the same as the annual inspections that West Sussex currently carries out. A typical West Sussex inspection is a day's visit on a taster basis to inspect some aspects of a school's performance.
  There is nothing in the Bill to stop the West Sussex practice from continuing as long as the authority has the assent of the head teachers and governors. No one in West Sussex has led me to believe that there is any move there on behalf of the head teachers and governors to stop that process. It is a somewhat fanciful fear to read the Bill and believe that that system is under threat—[Interruption.] I am being barracked by Opposition spokesmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) certainly should not lend his weight to the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is advocating something quite different from the system used by West Sussex and is a leading Labour Member of Parliament in a county that carries out no inspections at all.
  Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I had tabled an amendment, which will not now be debated and which sought in the simplest terms to redress that problem. I was told by the Government that they would oppose that proposal, as it was unacceptable to them.
  My amendment, which cannot now be discussed, sought to ensure that, if we in West Sussex chose to have inspections more frequently than once every four years, we could do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State now says that we can do that. My amendment might have been defeated if it had been selected, but as a result of the guillotine motion we may not debate it.
  I do not wish to be argumentative. It is certainly in my interests to try to find a way forward with my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is looking perplexed. I hope that we can come to some agreement on the matter. If the intent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is genuine, as I am sure it is, I believe that there is a way forward, and I shall go on to suggest it.
  It is not in the interests of schools or local education authorities to duplicate inspections, even if they had the resources to do so. So we would not want a full-blown inspection every year. I can see that the comparative performance of schools in West Sussex and elsewhere might be assessed more confidently if the inspection were based on the same system of periodic inspections. It is the standard of quality of the inspection, rather than the interval between inspections, that will produce comparable assessments.
  As for the Government's insistence on a comprehensive snapshot of schools once every four years, rather than a rolling programme of more frequent inspections, the Secretary of State has perhaps not fully appreciated how the existing system works in LEAs in West Sussex, and in the context of the guillotine, I am raising points on which it is hoped assurances will be given by the Government. It is relevant because our inspection programme has been developed to ensure that there is a systematic collection of evidence regarding pupil achievement through seven interlinked but separate inspection programmes.
  That involves a whole school or college inspection, under which, each year, the advisory and inspection service mounts a number of whole school general inspections which give a comprehensive review of the quality of achievement and work in a single school. Those inspections are similar to HMI full inspections and result in a report that is available to parents, governors and the education committee. Every year, about four secondary schools, 12 primary schools and a special school are inspected in that way. That broadly equates with the four-yearly inspections proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Soames: I endorse the warning by the Minister to beware the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in whose area there are no inspections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent aspect of the West Sussex system is that it enables the local authority to build a really comprehensive picture of the position on a regular basis at the most intimate levels, whereas an inspection in depth every four and a half years would provide no such perspective for parents, so that it would be deleterious for schools to go in for the proposed four-year programme?
  Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am anxious not to stray from the motion, so it is difficult to go into such matters in detail. Under the guillotine, we may not have any opportunity to discuss the issues in which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I, and many others, are interested. Having read the proceedings in Standing Committee, particularly on 17 December, I did not find adequately discussed the points in which we are interested.
  It is important, in the context of the motion, to refer to those and allied issues, because the House must appreciate the way in which we in West Sussex operate. In addition to our whole school inspections, which apply to a number of schools every year, there are other components of our rolling inspection programme. They comprise the inspection of development and management processes; department inspections; family inspections which cover groups of schools and which are based on secondary transfer patterns; and surveys of single-issue matters, such as the implementation of the national curriculum and reports on classroom visits. For example, this year in West Sussex there will be more than 5,000 classroom visits looking directly at the work and standard of pupils. We also have so-called longitudinal inspections on the database of pupils.
  Those issues are important in the context of today's discussion because they emphasise a point that did not emerge in the Standing Committee debates and may not be developed in any of the later debates in connection with the special circumstances in West Sussex. Our comprehensive and continuous system of inspection not only produces good results but flags up more quickly problems needing attention. Unless that continues to be possible under the Bill, or unless it is provided for in an assurance from the Minister, six out of the seven programmes that I have outlined will be in danger because of the imposition of the exclusive four-year inspection system.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I appreciate that, because my hon. Friend fears that he may not have an opportunity to speak later, he is anxious to expand now on the points worrying him. I attempted to reassure him some moments ago—as I did yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—that such matters are not threatened but can continue. My hon. Friend is worried lest the guillotine cuts out debate of amendment 59, which stands in the names of, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, who intervened yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who also spoke yesterday.
  I accept that that amendment is unlikely to be reached, because of the filibuster—[Interruption.]—and the consequential guillotine. Had it been reached, it would have purported to give schools the right to arrange for the inspections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has been referring. Our reaction would have been not to resist it but to say that the amendment was not necessary because schools have the right to arrange such inspections.
  My hon. Friend said that the four-year cycle was exclusive. I am glad of this opportunity to make it clear that it is not exclusive. The powers that his amendment sought to give governors would have been resisted on drafting grounds—on the ground that governors do not
  1108
  require them because they already have them, as the appropriate authority, to arrange for such inspections to take place, in West Sussex or anywhere else, if they require such inspections.
  Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and it seems that we are getting there. His words will be read carefully in West Sussex. The LEA should have the right to continue—if its standards are in excess of the minimum provided in the Bill—a system of inspection which is well tried and is more frequent. If that means that there need not be any change in the practices in West Sussex, we shall be delighted. If that is the case—and the intent of my amendment, which I cannot now discuss, would have been in order—it is difficult to see why it would not have been accepted. I will go no further into that now because I am anxious not to try the patience of the Chair.
  My right hon. and learned Friend may agree that perhaps it is possible to accommodate the West Sussex model by which there is a more extensive whole school inspection, with a residual right for schools to call in registered inspectors between four-yearly inspections. The practical problem may be the money involved in doing that, over and above the cost of the full four-yearly inspection for which the school will receive a financial allocation.
  But if the registered inspector can do the job every four years more cheaply, money may be left over for additional inspections, or advisory services, in each of the intervening years. It is not clear from the Bill as drafted whether more regular inspection of that type could take place, even if schools could find the resources or if the LEA decided to ask local charge payers to pay more to finance such inspections.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I got the impression that, when he was referring to cash, the Secretary of State did not hear his remarks. The major distinction between what he and his right hon. and learned Friend have said is that the Secretary of State implied that the school would be able to carry out such services, whereas the hon. Gentleman wants the county council, on a systematic basis, to continue with such services. That is not possible under the Bill because of the removal of the section 77(3) power. A local authority will not be allowed under the Bill to run an inspection service —unless it is self-financing—if it tenders for four-yearly inspections and receives all its income as a direct result. Not only will there not be any power for it to run an inspection service, but the local authority will not have any money to do so.
  Mr. Nelson: That is not what my local education authority has told me, and I would not wish to drive a coach and horses through what I regard as the laudable intention of the Bill—to which I know my right hon. and learned Friend is committed—to raise the average standards of inspection. I am merely saying that, when the minimum requirement of the law has been met, there is no reason to prevent a school or education authority from exceeding the required standard and providing a superior quality of inspection.
  I do not wish to persevere with that argument, because it may not be entirely in the spirit of the timetable motion. Let me return to the strict terms of the motion.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Like West Sussex, Durham runs a very successful inspection service. Schools are inspected once a year. It now appears that, if West Sussex and Durham, for example, do not win the tenders from their schools, they will no longer be able to continue that service—in which case the additional service that the Secretary of State describes will not be possible.
  Mr. Nelson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, whatever may happen in Durham, I do not think that such circumstances will arise in West Sussex: my local education authority feels confident about that.
  I do not wish to preserve the inspection rights of local education authorities as an immortal institution; I simply want the schools in my area to be inspected properly and adequately, and as frequently as possible. I want value for money, and if that can be provided by a registered inspector rather than a local education authority, I am all for it.
  So far, I have dealt with the case for discussion, during the time allotted to us, of the merits of more regular inspection than that provided by the Bill. The hon. Member for Blackburn, however, has raised a related issue, about which the Association of County Councils has expressed some concern. I refer to clarification of the residual powers of local education authorities to enter schools when that is necessary. I consider it reasonable, and within the terms of the debate on the timetable motion, to ask my right hon. and learned Friend for further clarification. Clauses 9 to 15 of the Bill, and the repeal of part of section 77 of the 1944 Act in schedule 5, call those powers into question.
  Under the 1944 Act, local education authorities are charged with a number of basic responsibilities. Those responsibilities include providing a varied and comprehensive education service in every area, ensuring that sufficient education is available to meet the needs of the population and ensuring that schools are sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide educational opportunities for all pupils. Those fundamental provisions have not been amended by subsequent legislation, nor are they amended in the Bill; but what will they amount to if local education authorities are specifically prevented from inspecting their own maintained schools, and are not explicitly empowered to go into those schools in pursuance of their broad statutory responsibilities?
  My right hon. and learned Friend has sought to assure the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that education authorities' rights to enter in connection with their statutory duties will remain implicit rather than explicit. His letter to the association stated that, if a school unreasonably refused entry to a local education authority, the Government would be prepared to use section 68 —
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now relating his comments to one of the amendments. He has remained in good order until now; I should be grateful if he would continue in that spirit.
  Mr. Nelson: I shall endeavour to heed your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that, as far as I am aware, the only amendment on which this narrow point about the right of entry could possibly have been discussed was ruled out of order. I must be careful not to address that amendment, which, for various technical reasons, was deemed to be outside the terms of the Bill.
  1110
  However, my right hon. and learned Friend now has an opportunity to clarify matters which he may not have later, and which was not provided to an adequate degreee either in Committee or in the correspondence that has taken place.
  I do not consider the present position satisfactory. The only legal powers that are provided by section 68 of the 1944 Act are very narrow, and very rarely used: they take time, and they require referral. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that, before we approve the timetable motion, we should enable my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm that the right to enter schools should be explicit.
  Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Nelson: Will my hon. Friend allow me to press on for a bit? I fear that I may so trespass on the patience of the Chair that I shall not manage to make some important points. I shall try to be brief, and I shall give way if an opportunity arises later.
  Local education authorities—including West Sussex—do not claim a monopoly of inspection expertise; nor do they resist the principle of regular independent inspection. What they claim is the right to enter and inspect as and when they judge it necessary, at their own cost. Serious —indeed, heartrending—circumstances could arise in which such rights of entry would be necessary under the statutory residual powers. Abuses of various kinds might be reported, which individual schools might be reluctant to address for "image" reasons but which should nevertheless be investigated immediately. Furthermore, a school might falter in the intervening time between the four-yearly inspections. Problems can arise following the appointment of a poor head teacher; the head might be at loggerheads with the chairman of the governors.
  In all such cases, education authorities must have a direct right of entry, which can be speedily implemented, to fulfil their statutory obligations. If something serious goes wrong and parents complain to the local education authority, is the authority to throw up its arms and say, "We have been denied an explicit right of entry to the school, and there is nothing we can do"? It would be very difficult for any of us to justify that to our constituents; indeed, it might result in tragedies that could have been avoided.
  Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend mentioned the statutory provision of a general duty to provide education. Since the passage of the 1944 Act, two important additions have been bolted on: the delivery of the national curriculum, and the testing of children at seven and, in due course, at 11. Those duties must be performed properly.
  Mr. Nelson: That is absolutely right. I am not trying to undermine the principle, or the practical provisions, of the legislation; I am merely saying that serious circumstances may arise in which the Government cannot be relied on to sort out the problem. In such circumstances, a right of entry should be provided explicitly.
  For all those reasons, I believe that the Government must make it plain—as they failed to do in Committee—that local education authorities have explicit powers to enter schools and fulfil their statutory obligations. I hope that, if that cannot be done tonight, provision will be made in another place.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The rebellion on the Tory Benches has not been on a large scale, but it has certainly been lengthy. I shall come on to the West Sussex question in a moment—although I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall not deal with it at the same length as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).
  Let me begin by referring to earlier discussion about how the present circumstances came about, and what could be done in the future. There has been a certain amount of disingenuous comment, but one thing is for certain—the guillotine will squeeze out proper debate of the important amendments.
  Parliamentary business could be organised in far more effective ways. However, a system of simple agreement between the Conservative and Labour Front Benches is a system liable to block the alternative views of both Back Benchers and other parties. In discussions both last night and today, none of those views has been represented. Had they been represented, it is likely that we would not be in this situation now and the hon. Member for Chichester would have been able to move his amendment rather than borrowing time from the guillotine debate to discuss it.
  We should be wary of reforms that introduce easy time-tabling, to the convenience of both Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams, because there is a risk that it would be used as a means to stifle rather than enhance debate. Inevitably, both Front Benches find that to their advantage.
  The Secretary of State has not been able to give an answer to the West Sussex question. I am appalled that the guillotine motion will mean that there will be no debate on this. My only consolation is that, while the Government may be able to push the Bill through this House, they will not be able to push it through the other place.
  There is an obvious logic to the question that has been posed but which Ministers have not answered. What is the advantage of moving to a system that, rather than enhancing inspections, reduces them? There is no question but that in West Sussex, as in other parts of the country, that will happen.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I keep trying to handle the West Sussex question sympathetically, partly by saying that the fears are unnecessary. In their enthusiasm to rush to the defence of West Sussex, people are grossly exaggerating what goes on there. The Bill institutes a four-year regular cycle of full inspections of every aspect of the school, its delivery, curriculum and management. It will take about a week for a team of inspectors to inspect a medium-sized secondary school. The West Sussex system is of inspections carried out once a year, with the consent of the governors, taking only one day and looking at the teaching of only one subject, such as maths. As I have already said, there is no reason why that system cannot continue.
  It is absurd for the Labour party to imply that my hon. Friends with constituencies in West Sussex are suggesting anything that is in line with its policy, but it is equally absurd for the Liberal Democrats to join in with a grotesque exaggeration of a fantastic Rolls-Royce system in West Sussex that is about to be cut. When it is got into proportion, it will be found that the West Sussex question is a tiny one. I accept that I have so far failed to satisfy my hon. Friends that what they are defending is not being threatened by the Bill.
  Mr. Taylor: I am glad that the Secretary of State made that intervention. If he were right in his portrayal of the effects of the Bill, he would go a long way to reassuring us, but he is incorrect for two substantial reasons. The first, which has already been addressed, is the financial difficulty that a local authority will have in providing such a system, because of the financial arrangements that the Secretary of State has announced. If he is to take the opportunity of the debate on the guillotine motion to announce a change in financial arrangements, that will be welcome.
  In Committee, Ministers outlined a second and more fundamental problem. Again, it could be changed and, were it changed, that would go a long way to giving us a reassurance that would meet the basis of the question, although it would not necessarily tie up all the loose ends. It is that if registered inspectors and their teams within a local authority go into a school outside the four-year cycle —either because they are called in or because parents have expressed concerns—that would not be a formal inspection, because there is no role for that within the four-year cycle, so it would count as advice to the school from the local authority. That would mean that the inspectors who had performed the work would be debarred from making any other inspections of the school, on the ground that they had offered advice to it. That was made clear by Ministers in a debate in Committee on an amendment on the subject that I tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
  A local authority wishing to maintain an inspection service to deliver the four-year cycle cannot afford to have inspectors going into schools at other times, because that will debar them from making future inspections and gradually wear away the ability of the local authority and its registered inspectors to provide an inspection service. Inevitably, local authorities will not be prepared to undertake that role.
  It should not be difficult for the Secretary of State to make changes that would meet that objection without opening up the avenue of an alternative four-year cycle. I never argued that local authority cycles of inspections should be in competition with those called in by the schools. That would be a waste of money. However, in Committee, Ministers confirmed that any inspection outside the regular cycle would be counted as the tendering of advice, which would thereby debar inspectors from going into schools subsequently. That is a substantive point, but perhaps the Secretary of State will correct it.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I think that we are getting clarity. The local authority can have a right of entry and inspection, if one wants to call it inspecting, so long as that right of entry is pursuant to a statutory duty. That is implicit and does not have to be spelt out. The attempt to do so, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), was ruled out of order. Secondly, governors have the right to invite local authorities to come in for any purpose that they think is necessary, including inspecting or giving advice.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised a third point. It is that the Bill tries to separate the functions of advice and inspection for the reason that, if we relax that generally, there would be the absurd situation that we believe that the Labour party is advocating. People would advise the school between inspections and then make an inspection and commend their advice and the result of their labours to the parents.

  1113
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is saying that, if employees of the local authority have gone to a school other than when performing an inspection pursuant to their statutory duty, they will automatically be counted as advisers. I think that that is not correct—I shall check and come back later if I am wrong—because it depends on what they do. People are advisers only if they have been visiting a school for the purpose of giving advice. If they have been advising on a school's management or performance, they are not suitable to inspect the results of their advice. They cannot be deemed to be advisers if they have not given any advice about what has happened on previous visits.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The allocation of time motion allows only a narrow debate, but I am trying to be as generous as possible within the Standing Orders. I ask hon. Members to be sympathetic to the Chair and help it to maintain Standing Orders. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is going into a great deal of detail about amendments. If he would relate what he is saying to, or complain about, the allocation of time motion from time to time, I should be happy to hear that.
  Mr. Taylor: My point is precisely that we are not able to raise these questions because of the guillotine. It is clear from the debate so far that that is the case and that the Bill will not be adequately debated. I do not wish to cause you a problem, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, in view of the Minister's comments, I ask that he looks at the Committee debate on this subject, when the Minister of State said that that was not the way that it was expected that the Bill would be interpreted. His interpretation was that because the right of inspection is removed, anything outside that regular four-year cycle can be seen only as advice. Perhaps the Secretary of State will ask his advisers and reconsider the issue. If he is unable to come back to us during this debate, perhaps he will write to us before the Bill goes to another place, because it is an important issue.
  Mr. Straw: I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will recollect that it was made clear in Committee that schedule 2(3)(5) would exclude people who had given advice to a school from inspecting it. He will recall that the terms of paragraph (3)5 are very wide. It states:
  "It shall be the duty of the registered inspector"—
  the head of the firm—
  "to ensure that no person takes any part in an inspection if he has, or has at any time had—

  (a) any connection with the school in question, or

  (b) any connection with any person employed at the school,
  of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to that school."

  It is plain from what the Secretary of State says that if
  inspectors went to a school under the advisory powers now being offered to West Sussex, it would be difficult for the same people to undertake an inspection.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. I can add to my list of complaints about the guillotine motion the fact that, because I did not expect the debate to occur now, I do not have with me the Committee references that would allow me to quote the Minister. However, the Minister has civil servants and, no doubt, his own records and he will be able to read for himself. He made it clear that a local
  1114
  authority could send inspectors to a school but that those inspectors would not be able at a later date to go back to the school as part of the regular four-year cycle. Inevitably, West Sussex or any other local authority would not be prepared to use its inspectors in that way because it would destroy its own inspection service by so doing.
  It is deeply ironic that we should be debating a guillotine motion on a Bill which will more than halve the HMI and in so doing tear out its ability to visit schools in any number, on the very afternoon that the Secretary of State announced at a press conference—and he will shortly be doing interviews—the annual report of the senior chief inspector of schools. The report's introduction emphasises the fact that the quality of the report is underpinned by the 7,000 or so visits that HMI was able to undertake.
  Guillotining the Bill will remove the ability effectively to consider amendments to a change which will wipe out for ever HMI's ability to undertake reports on that basis and of that quality. The Secretary of State welcomes the quality of information that HMI is able to provide, but he sits in on the guillotine motion of a Bill which will end that ability once and for all. That seems appalling. I hope that there will be a general election in time to stop the Bill and that, no matter who wins the election, the Government of the day will not introduce a Bill that affects HMI in that way and which removes its ability to offer the advice that has been valued for many years as independent and authoritative. It will no longer be authoritative, because it will not have the benefit of direct experience of schools on which to base it. There are many reasons to hope for an early election, but I feel strongly that that is one of the best.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and it struck me as the speech of a man who had not had the pleasure of listening to some of his hon. Friends speak last night. I suspect that, if he had, he would have changed his mind. Clearly, the reasons for the timetable motion—or the guillotine—can be found in the unreasonable behaviour of Opposition Members. There is little doubt that they filibustered, and I shall justify that claim on three specific grounds.
  All three Deputy Speakers who last night supervised the debate had cause to bring Opposition Members to order for straying from the subject. I think that that must be unique. It must be the first time that each occupant of the Chair has had to bring Opposition Members to order. In my time in the House— going back to 1979—I have never seen a debate handled so badly by the Opposition. I also noticed that at least one hon. Gentleman was brought to order on two occasions—that was the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—and I feel that that is some justification for levelling a charge of filibustering.
  I advance a second reason for the charge of filibustering. Hansard records the lengths of interventions from Opposition Members and some were longer than the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens). His speech was concise and very much to the point—what a contrast there was between his admirable speech and the interventions made by Opposition Members.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in his place. I recall his being reminded by

  1115
  the occupant of the Chair—on two separate occasions, I think—about the length of his interventions. Clearly, that underlines my point that there was filibustering last night. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. (Mr. Fallon), who is known in this place for his good manners and for his tolerant and friendly attitude, found it necessary to accuse the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of filibustering; on that occasion he was right, as he is on so many others.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Give him a job.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have no desire for a job, thank you.
  The third reason to justify the charge of filibustering is the speech made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), which lasted for about 25 minutes and referred, among other matters, to an inspection of a school which took place in 1860. Hon. Members may ask what is the relevance to the Bill of an inspection that took place in 1860. It is also significant that the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the earldom of Fitzwilliam. Again, that seemed to be straying from the point.
  Nevertheless, I found the hon. Gentleman's speech interesting and I was able to discover that he, like myself, had served in the Royal Air Force. He also noted the educational improvements that have taken place in the past 40 years. I genuinely enjoyed his speech, but it was rather long-winded—indeed, it was longer than that made by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Those of us who have sat through the hon. Lady's speeches will know that, at times, they seem interminable but last night her speech was shorter than that of the hon. Member for Wentworth.
  Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: In a moment.
  I dislike using the word "filibuster". It is an Americanism which has crept into our language only because we do not have an alternative word. I believe that an alternative is now at hand—the word "Wentworth". That has a good solid English ring to it. We should invent the verb "to wentworth"—
  Mr. Burns: What about "to flannery"?
  Mr. Pawsey: That is a competitor and perhaps we could conjoin the two—
  Mr. Burns: To flannel.
  Mr. Pawsey: —to flannel and to wentworth—and make it even more imposing.
  Mr. Flannery: As a matter of fact, the longest speech last night was made by the Secretary of State, who spoke for 40 minutes. I was in a Select Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was speaking, but the speech just made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) lasted for 34 minutes of the short time that we have available. To my knowledge he was pulled up at least twice for deviating from the point at issue. Why does not the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) mention that?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Not for the first time, he has given me a perfect illustration of the verb "to flannery". That is splendid.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): A wet flannery.
  Mr. Pawsey: Quite so.
  Conservative Members want the Bill to be enacted. We want the improved inspection arrangements; we want parents to have more information about what takes place in the nation's schools, where their children—our children —are educated.
  Professor Anthony King said recently:
  "In terms of big ideas, Labour is travelling light to the point of nudity."
  —I am pleased to say that the occupants of the Labour Benches are reasonably clothed at the moment. Professor King's remarks about Labour's lack of a big idea were borne out in last night's debate. We heard all the usual pious hand-wringing, the heart and breast-baring demands for a period of stability in education.
  My hon. Friends and I found that extraordinary, because Labour is the party which wants, for example, to abolish grant-maintained schools. It is said that one of the first acts of an incoming Labour Government would be to introduce legislation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seems to be confirming that the Labour party would abolish grant-maintained schools—schools which have been established following a vote by parents.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman inform me how that relates to the allocation of time motion?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have given me the opportunity to describe the connection. You were present for much of last night's debate and will have heard how Labour Members prayed in aid all sorts of ideas. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to a document which he claimed was Labour party education policy. Of course, that document refers to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, so that is why I made that passing reference, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  If the guillotine had not been imposed, there would have been an opportunity, as we discussed some of the later clauses, to describe how the Labour party would abolish city technology colleges, grammar schools, the assisted places scheme—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order for a second time so soon. We are speaking about an allocation of time motion. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to deal with such matters. I hope that he will now do so.
  Mr. Pawsey: I apologise unreservedly to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for any discourtesy that you may have inferred from my remarks—it was unintentional, I assure you. I listened carefully to what you said, and I assure you that I will remain within order from now on.
  I should have liked to reach the second part of the Bill, but, sadly, we may not now do so, because of the way in which the guillotine works. You have studied the Bill carefully, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will recall that the second part concerns information and schools, and will provide parents and others with greater knowledge of what takes place in local education

  1117
  authorities and in the nation's schools. It is not surprising that the Guild of Newspaper Editors supports the principle underlying the Bill.
  Sadly, the Standing Committee did not reach one of the provisions that I would have liked to have discussed, which refers to ethnic communities. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State replies to the debate, he will say a word about how schools and areas with large ethnic groups will receive the information that we feel that they should receive. Not all parents in such areas speak English as a first language. It is important that they, like other parents, are made aware of what is taking place in their children's schools.
  It has been argued that tables comprising what is described as raw data are unhelpful because they do not provide enough information for a reasonable comparison to be made. I have two specific answers to that. First, it is an extremely patronising attitude. The implication is that parents have not the ability to make a choice, that they do not possess the interest, motivation or knowledge to make a reasoned decision. People should understand that parents are not as thick as Labour Members seek to have us believe.
  Parents know about catchment areas, about which school has a large proportion of youngsters whose first language is not English. Parents understand those things and can make allowances for them, provided that the basic information is made available.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Can the hon. Gentleman cite one parents' organisation that supports the Bill?
  Mr. Pawsey: I have not the slightest doubt that parents will rally to support the Act once it is on the statute book and they see and appreciate the benefits that flow from it. I served on the Committee on the Education Reform Act 1988. Labour Members condemned and opposed that Act. They said that it would mean the end of education as we knew it, yet now we know it to be a great reforming Act.
  People who seek to discredit the tables must understand that, tables or no tables, parents will still make judgments about schools. The only difference is that such judgments would be based on information picked up at the school gate or on what other parents say at open evenings. In the past, there has been no real source of information, and the Bill does much to remedy that. The tables will be widely welcomed by parents as an essential tool to help them to select a school for their children.
  The thrust and burden of the Bill is to improve the quality and standard of state education. Labour Members are suspicious about parents. They believe that only professionals should have opinions. I have news for them —parents want to know about the quality of individual schools and local education authorities, and we will ensure that that information is made available to them.
  Labour Members want to treat parents like mushrooms, fed on a selective diet and kept firmly in the dark.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should love to hear what the hon. Gentleman thinks about the motion under discussion.
  Mr. Pawsey: It may be appropriate, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
  1118
  It was Chairman Mao who said that knowledge is power. Conservatives intend to put that knowledge into the hands of the nation's parents.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. John McFall: We have witnessed a spectacular own goal by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). His case for the Government rested on the assertion that we spoke for too long last night and had to be called to order. Yet three times during his speech you, Madam Deputy Speaker, called him to order, so his case has a huge hole in it.
  I respect the hon. Gentleman and am happy to hear him speak. He was the only Conservative Back-Bench Member who was here throughout the debate last night, unlike those who intervened and then walked away, such as the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). They had no interest in it. It is amazing that a Conservative Member should speak for 34 minutes and complain about the guillotine motion when he was not even here to listen to the debate last night. What hypocrisy.
  I wish to speak on the guillotine motion and to complain that we have no opportunity to discuss the major problems. I wish to debate the issues that affect Scotland. Clause 17 has massive implications for Scotland. It is an enabling clause that allows the Secretary of State for Scotland to gather unrestricted information on what is happening in schools, including personal information about pupils, their families and backgrounds, and it could be open to abuse.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is now making his clause 17 stand part speech which he failed to make in Committee?
  Mr. McFall: The Minister of State is perceptive sometimes, but his perceptiveness has departed from him tonight. I am complaining about the guillotine motion. I was here yesterday from 3.30 and I participated in every debate until 10 o'clock. The Government then panicked because they thought that the schedule for a 9 April election might not be adhered to. They therefore stopped the business, despite the fact that we were debating the Bill clause by clause.
  I am not against the disclosure of information, but the Bill places no limits on the nature of the information that the Secretary of State may require. It empowers him to obtain and publish information as he decides, without democratic or parliamentary control. That cannot be right, and the guillotine motion offers us less opportunity to mould the Bill as we would wish.
  Clause 17 enables the Tories' parents charter to be applied in Scotland. The Scottish public have been suspicious about Tory claims and their implementation of education for many years. The Government's response has been a cavalier disregard for the massive opposition to their education proposals in Scotland in the past four or five years. No matter what arguments are made against them or how strong the public opinion, the Minister of State, Scottish Office goes ahead with his policies and ideological love children, such as the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988.
  The parents charter has difficulty in hiding the fiasco in Tory education policy. In Scotland there are no opt-out schools or city technology colleges, and two thirds of

  1119
  children in state education last year did not take the national test. The current elections in Strathclyde and Grampian regions, to name just two, saw the collapse of school boards. In Grampian, 40 per cent. of the schools had no nominations, and in Strathclyde 67 per cent. had insufficient nominations.
  I am against the crude statistics in league tables. Sadly, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his Ministers have not listened to the educationists. Last night, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) spoke about international comparisons. The Secretary of State should consider them. In America, tests have been running for many years, and bitter lessons can be learned from them. Given the vigorous treatment by the press of league tables, which can be used to praise or pillory teachers and their methods, and given that statistics are used by estate agents to rate neighbourhoods, the scores can become very high, and the scores in American tests have become higher over the years.
  If that is what the Government want, fair enough, but Opposition Members and educationists want to know how that has influenced learning. Teachers are under enormous pressure to raise the test scores and children in the United States are now trained in test-taking only. Where is the learning?
  At Christmas, I read a magazine article on education in America, which gave an example of a question given to 17-year-old high school students. It was an objective test on America and the students were to choose their answers from boxes. The question was, "When did the first world war begin?" In one box the answer was, "Between 1900 and 1950", and 42 per cent.—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he started his comments rather well, but this is a narrow motion and he has strayed a long way from it.
  Mr. McFall: The last thing that I would want is to be humiliated like the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
  I was saying that 42 per cent. of the children got the answer wrong, so that did not assist the learning process.
  I want to push the Government on the issue of league tables and crude statistics, but I do not have time to do so. Are the Government simply intent on raising test scores, or do they wish to help the learning process of children in United Kingdom, particularly Scottish, education? I do not have time to push that issue. I am aware of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of the fact that other Members want to speak, but I object strongly to the Government's action in stopping the business last night when we were debating the Bill clause by clause. It does nothing for parliamentary democracy, and it certainly does nothing for the education of children. Will the Government think again about some of their proposals?
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am sure that I am not alone in having wondered, during the guillotine motion debates that I have sat through in the five years in which I have been a Member of the House, about the whole issue of timetabling. I listened carefully to the words of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and
  1120
  of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), but I am unconvinced about the case for timetabling.
  In the unlikely event that the Conservative party is ever again in opposition—I do not expect that to happen in my lifetime—I wonder whether we would be willing to relinquish the power that untimetabled Bills undoubtedly give us. I would be suspicious of any suggestion about timetabling in general and would not welcome such collusion between the two Front Benches. It would further limit and diminish the influence and power of Back Benchers.
  It is most important that any Government who seek to move a guillotine motion should have to justify to the House their reasons for doing so, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did this afternoon. The guillotine motion is richly deserved, because the events last night were a classic case for a guillotine. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend all yesterday's debates, but I served on the Committee, I have seen today's Hansard, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has kindly filled me in on the debate.
  Although there have been mutterings about whether yesterday's business was influenced by the forthcoming election, the rumour circulating on this side of the House last night was that the Opposition wished to frustrate the Bill's chance of reaching the statute book before the election. That played a large part in yesterday's strategy. Equally, it was strongly suggested that the events in the Chamber yesterday afternoon bore no relation to the matter under discussion. Rather, they related to a discussion elsewhere about the business for next week and whether it suited the Opposition Front Bench.
  I am perfectly satisfied that a most monstrous filibuster went on in the Chamber yesterday when a matter of great importance should have been debated. I am sure that the Government were right to table the guillotine motion.
  The Bill was well and effectively discussed in Committee. I have not sat on many Committees, I suppose, but I cannot think of one that has been more constructive and more harmonious than the one that considered this Bill. We addressed many of the points that have been discussed this afternoon without the necessity of timetabling. We discussed the issues raised in the Bill, and we had enough time to do it. There was little difference between the two sides in Committee.
  When the television cameras were absent, when not many people were in the Gallery and when we got down to discussing the issues, there was precious little between us. By the exercise of great restraint on the part of Conservative Back Benchers, we had a chance to listen with interest to the arguments put by Opposition Members and to the very convincing arguments put by those on the Government Front Bench.
  So there are few serious points left for discussion, and the timetable allowed for the Bill, together with the time that could have been spent much more profitably yesterday, is about right.
  Opposition Members ought to be extremely grateful to the Government for timetabling the Bill, because it hides a great embarrassment for them. On one of the key measures of the Bill—clause 16, league tables—there is a massive, public split on the Opposition Benches. It has already appeared in this debate, and it was evident in Committee.

  1121
  On the one hand, we have the hon. Member for Blackburn, (Mr. Straw), who is broadly in favour of league tables and is on record as saying that he wants to see a thousand league tables bloom. When I introduced my ten-minute Bill, with strong support from my hon. Friends, he made it clear that this was not a measure with which he strongly disagreed. He is on record as supporting, in principle, league tables.
  We have, on the other hand, the second tendency, personified in Committee by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who have been with us for most of the debate. They strongly oppose league tables and they set out clearly and concisely in Committee why they do not accept them. They did not vote according to their convictions but they set out their deep reservations about league tables.
  A third tendency, closely allied to the second, is best epitomised by my own education authority in Nottinghamshire, where there is an odiously patronising attitude towards parents. The view of that authority, in hock, as so often, to some of the teacher unions, is that parents cannot be trusted with important information. If it is given to them, they will not use it responsibly or properly. As has been so ably demonstrated throughout the debate on the Bill, that is absolute nonsense and shows a complete lack of respect for the parents whom members of the authority are supposed to be helping, assisting and serving in discharging their duties as an education authority.
  I will not attempt to test your patience on this matter today, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is extremely important that the Bill reaches the statute book as quickly as possible, and all those who have tried to promote league tables and emphasise the importance of getting more information to parents, to enable choice and opportunity in education, know this. The guillotine motion will ensure a speedy passage for the Bill through the House, and I look forward to its reaching the statute book.
  6.23 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I oppose the allocation of time motion because the four major clauses of the Bill, out of the 20 clauses which concern the Welsh Office, have scarcely been debated at any stage. In Committee they were given only a few minutes, because my right hon. Friend—I should not call him my right hon. Friend, but I can call him my friend —the Minister for State, Welsh Office (Sir W. Roberts) was not a member of the Committee and therefore could not speak with his customary authority on these matters, being as he is, the longest-serving Minister of State in the Government or probably in any other Government in the history of Parliament. So there was no proper debate of these issues.
  It presents a serious problem for those who seek to defend the unitary state and the way in which legislation for England and Wales and, for that matter, Scotland is dealt with here.
  Before I came here, I had to learn my constitutional theory. We debated these matters in the late 1970s, at the time of devolution. It looks as though we may have to debate them again, whatever the result of the forthcoming
  1122
  election—and I can speak objectively because I am not standing at that election. I was taught that primary legislation is dealt with—scrutinised line by line—by the House of Commons; after Second Reading it goes to Committee and comes back to the House on Report. Secondary legislation—such as orders—is dealt with separately. The Welsh Office, being the Department of State responsible for nearly all education policy in Wales, then implements the primary legislation; but it is for Welsh hon. Members in the House, in London, to debate primary legislation as it affects Wales.
  It is no news for me to announce in the House—I do it without fear of contradiction by the Secretary of State for Education and Science or by any other hon. Member—that there has been inadequate scrutiny of the four clauses of the Bill as they affect Her Majesty's inspectorate for Wales. That is why I feel confident that I am in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not be subject to a "Pawsey"—our new term for someone who is often called to order by Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Although we have had inadequate debate, I should like to draw attention to the fact that creeping announcements, which might have formed a debate, have been emerging in Hansard. On Monday, there was a paragraph of an answer from the Minister of State on HMI in Wales, referring to its visits to 40 per cent. of primary schools and all secondary schools in Wales. We had an even longer answer —four pages of the best Welsh Office typescript—setting out the views of the Secretary of State on the future role of HMI. Unfortunately, I cannot detect, without reading between the lines of that answer—but I think that I am reading it correctly—what this actually means for the future numbers employed in HMI Wales.
  I put this question on Second Reading in the form of an intervention and, quite rightly, the Secretary of State for Education and Science replied that the number of inspectors employed in Wales was a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. I agree with him. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive an answer to my question.
  The impression that I get from the long written answer is that there will be no change in the number of inspectors. The final paragraph of the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) says that the Secretary of State for Wales expects that
  "in due course there will be some overall reduction in the numbers of HMI engaged in work related to schools but it is not possible to be precise at this stage". [Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 577.]
  The rest of the answer talks of strengthening their independence, of their no longer being civil servants and of retaining existing terms and conditions; and it led me to the conclusion that there will not be a reduction of the present number of 60, made up of the chief inspector, eight staff inspectors and 51 inspectors, that we have at the moment. The Secretary of State is nodding. It might he helpful if I gave way to him.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hesitate to intervene in these matters, which, the hon. Gentleman and I agree, are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but he is not in the position which I am in, with our senior chief inspector, of having calculated a figure for reduction in the anticipated establishment of HMI. In the circumstances of Wales, the Secretary of State has no such figure at present, although he anticipates that the change in role might in due course lead to some reduction.
  Dr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention which, will, I hope, satisfy me and some of my friends in the inspectorate. I had better not say "some of my friends" because, although I shall be leaving the House at the election, I am not suggesting that I am available as a consultant to inspect adult education in Wales.
  I do not say that there is a conspiracy between the Front Benches on allocation of time motions, but I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that, if we are to have serious debates on primary legislation we need an allocation of time for all Bills. That time must include some sort of block allocation to cater for minorities. It would not be right if the West Sussex minority had more attention in primary legislation than the Welsh minority or any other ethnic or national minority in these islands.
  The Welsh Office may not want to advertise its policy too clearly, in case the Department of Education and Science finds out, as I think it has, that the Welsh Office is not pursuing the same policy on the inspectorate as is followed in England. English educationists might find out that the Welsh Office is not halving or privatising the inspectorate, or whatever words are being used. It might also not be in the interests of the Labour Front Bench to admit that the Welsh Office is pursuing consensus education policies that may well be more progressive than those of the Labour party in Wales.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: Much of the debate has concentrated on the problems of West Sussex. I shall not go down that road, except to say that my father is a councillor on West Sussex county council, and I have no doubt that he will give me an ear bashing similar to that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) to the Secretary of State. I should like to speak about a part of the country with which I am even more familiar than West Sussex—the county of Humberside. I shall deal with how clause 16 relates to schools in that county and, in particular, in my constituency.
  I looked forward to yesterday's debate and at any time between 2 am and 4 am I would have been happy to speak to the amendments to clause 16. I was delighted to see the guillotine motion, because it seemed to point to two days of debate at a sensible time when we would have been able to give proper consideration to clause 16. The problem with the guillotine motion, is that it is all-embracing. Such motions sometimes enable two or three hours of debate on one clause followed by a debate of an hour or two on another.
  I do not object to the idea of today's business being guillotined. However, I wish that the motion had allowed for certainty of debate on clause 16, which deals with information about schools. That is one of the major clauses in the Bill and will be of great benefit to parents in a constituency such as mine. If there had been a debate on it yesterday, I should have liked to speak to it. We need it because it encapsulates the problems in some schools in Grimsby and Cleethorpes which take children from my constituency. In the past week or two, some head teachers in my constituency refused to make the parents charter available to parents, and that document does nothing but draw attention to the rights of parents.
  Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, because, like me, he represents a Humberside constituency.
  Thank goodness for the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, which, in an editorial a few days ago, drew the attention of its readers to a disgraceful situation. It said that it would take upon itself the responsibility for ensuring that parents would find out more information about their schools—
  Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about some provincial evening newspaper rather than about the motion. I understood that he had to speak to the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman is right, and he is a short head in front of me: I was about to ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) what on earth this part of his speech has to do with the motion.
  Mr. Brown: My point is that, but for clause 16, the opportunity to ensure that information is given to parents—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make on the motion the speech that he might have made if we had been discussing clause 16 stand part.
  Mr. Brown: I accept that, but I wish to draw to the attention of the House the relevance of my remarks to the motion. It is vital that that local newspaper publishes information about schools, because head teachers refused to do so. That is an outrage to parents. Thank goodness the Bill will pass to another place. I look forward to the vote on the motion because it will ensure that parents and children in my constituency will have the opportunity to receive information about their schools.
  Mr. Morley: The Grimsby Evening Telegraph is an excellent paper, surpassed only by the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph. The hon. Gentleman should know that local authorities are asking whether the parents charter is party political propaganda, outlawed by Government regulations. Humberside is quite right to be careful because it could be caught by the law for dishing out party political propaganda. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we had had a proper debate yesterday all these issues could have been discussed and we would not have needed the guillotine motion?
  Mr. Brown: Cabinet rules are strict on such matters and the Central Office of Information ensures that certain guidelines are followed by the Government. It is clear that the pamphlet could not be distributed unless it complied with the rules that are clearly laid down in the civil service. How could anyone object to a simple statement of fact?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough of that. Let us get back to the motion.
  Mr. Brown: I have been in the Chamber for three hours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during which the Chair drew my attention to the fact that it would be in order to range reasonably widely as long as our remarks related to the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the hon. Gentleman's references to the parents charter. I hope that he will not dispute my ruling.
  Mr. Brown: I would not dream of ever doing that. I shall simply draw the House's attention to one simple fact. The motion must be passed quickly to ensure that the Bill proceeds as soon as possible to another place. That will ensure that parents have the right to information about their children and that no head teacher will be able to stand in their way.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I often speak after the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and often feel that he is filibustering even when he makes a serious speech. In this debate, he did exactly that. However, he has been beaten today by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), because his speech was a filibuster if ever there was one.
  Well over 80 new clauses and amendments in 26 groups were tabled for discussion. Normally one can expect at least an hour for proper discussion of each group of amendments. The Minister's opening speech usually takes about half an hour, and when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has had his say, there is not much time left for Back Benchers. Yesterday, we had before us 26 groups of amendments, which could have meant about 26 hours of debate. The debate that we did have was very much shorter.
  I spoke for only three minutes, so I was not filibustering. Indeed, I had some very important points to make. In addition, I wanted to say some very important things about later clauses, but will now be prevented from doing so. The Government panicked at 10 o'clock last night, when they realised that they would not get the Bill through. I vehemently oppose this measure. I opposed it vehemently in Committee and will continue to do so. The Bill is flawed and should never have been put before the House and the country. It might have been improved a little with some new clauses, but the guillotine makes that impossible.
  The proposed reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate is fundamentally flawed. The question of private inspectors is without doubt being pursued for the sake of political dogma. It has nothing to do with education. In addition to the political dogma, there is now the fact that we are being prevented from discussing the proposals. The Bill will pass to another place without fair discussion of the ways in which it could have been improved. There is no doubt that improvement could have been achieved by some of the very reasonable new clauses that have been tabled.
  I make no bones about the fact that I object to the league tables and to the use of raw data about schools. Neither parents, teachers nor pupils will derive any benefit from this system. Education itself will be undermined. During the three or four weeks of Committee debate, we identified at least eight areas in which major amendment is needed, but we are now to be prevented from discussing those. Let me outline some of the areas that we shall be prevented from discussing. First, all inspectors—from chief inspector down—should hold the status of qualified teacher, with experience in education in England or Wales and, as appropriate, knowledge of the Welsh language.
  1126
  During the Select Committee's deliberations, the Secretary of State told us that he was quite prepared to have the local butcher as an inspector of state schools. If that is not political dogma, I do not know what is. The fact is that the Secretary of State does not give a damn about state education. He never has given a damn. He is not bothered about who inspects schools. He even says that the local butcher could do the job. But that is something that we shall not be able to discuss today, and in respect of which we shall not be able to put the Bill right.
  Secondly, we shall not be able to discuss the fact that inspectors should be registered to inspect schools of the categories to which their qualifications relate, and that they should have relevant experience. Nursery inspectors will be able to inspect secondary schools, and secondary inspectors will be able to inspect nursery schools. What does a secondary inspector know about nursery schools? Nothing at all. Under the Bill, any inspector will be able to inspect any sector of the curriculum.
  Thirdly, effective inspection of education necessitates an independent HMI, free from political control or manipulation. Inspectors must have power to report on all aspects of education policy in England and Wales. Fourthly, all inspectors should be subject to a code of practice. Fifthly, the coherence of local education authorities' provision of schools inspection will be undermined by the imposition of competition. [Interruption.] Every time I make a speech, I am pressurised. Let me assure the House that I shall try to finish very shortly.
  My sixth area of concern relates to the fact that there must be safeguards to protect confidential information relating to individuals. Seventhly, inspectors should take account of the quality and effectiveness of the education provided by each school and of the resources provided for each school. My final point is that league tables made up of raw data have no place in a high-quality education service and will undermine our children's educational opportunities.
  In Committee, the Government failed to pay attention to these flaws, and by using the guillotine tonight they are doing it again. We are being prevented from debating the Bill properly or altering it.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: In two respects, this has been a revealing debate. First, despite all the Government's charges of filibustering, Conservative Members have today spoken for 65 minutes, whereas Opposition Members have spoken for 33 minutes—half the time taken by Government Members.
  Yesterday we had the spectacle of the Secretary of State filibustering in the debate on his own Bill. He made the longest speech. Today we have had an even more interesting spectacle. Although Conservative Members have taken up twice as much time as Opposition Members, most of their speeches have been in opposition to the Bill. Yesterday, half the Conservative Members who spoke opposed the Government's proposals.
  But the real reason for the Government's panic last night and their decision to railroad the Bill through the House today is the intensity of the opposition to it, not only from the Opposition but from Conservative Members. In this regard, I commend the hon. Member for

  1127
  Chichester (Mr. Nelson) for his courage and eloquence. In a forensic speech, he simply destroyed the whole structure of the measure.
  One of the reasons for our great regret at this guillotine motion is that we shall not have an opportunity to debate new clauses 10 and 20, which propose the establishment of an education standards commission to take over the work of the inspectorate and to supervise and direct the work of local inspectors. We are convinced that our policy for the future of inspection is robust. One of the reasons for our being so convinced is that the Secretary of State has to invent our policy every time he seeks to attack it.
  A year ago, I commented on the problems of Culloden school in east London. The Culloden saga raises a very much larger question, which the Government have so far failed to address. I refer to the lack of any coherent system in England for the effective and consistent monitoring of school standards and teaching methods. I went on to speak of the haphazard national inspection arrangements, which are mirrored by even more haphazard local arrangements.
  Then I spelled out the fact that Labour would establish an education standards commission, which, contrary to the canards, the inventions, of the Secretary of State, would ensure separate inspection services and would provide not only that schools were inspected on a regular basis in accordance with a set national standard but—to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Chichester—that the best practice of authorities like the hon. Member's would be reflected in the practice of all authorities.
  I do not approve of the fact that some authorities do not make provision for the proper and regular inspection of their schools. I reject that attitude, whether the authority concerned is Labour or Conservative. Under the aegis of an education standards commission, we shall ensure that every local authority has inspection arrangements that conform to a national and uniform standard. That standard will come into effect only with the approval of a national standards commission whose members are nominated by the Secretary of State and are approved by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which reports to this House.
  We also object to the guillotine because of the insufficient time which it gives the House to debate the measure. The Bill dismembers Her Majesty's inspectorate and reduces it in size from 480 to 175. Because it is effectively being cut by more than half, there is no way in which the inspectorate can effectively supervise the arrangements which the Secretary of State proposes for a privatised local schools inspectorate.
  A point made forcefully yesterday by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) was that, contrary to the suggestion of the Secretary of State, the new HMI will not be independent but will become the creature of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State came close to misleading the House yesterday when he talked about independence and said that the new HMI might have to have regard to the directions of the Secretary of State. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury pointed out, under clause 2(5) the senior chief inspector has no discretion, The Secretary of State may direct that he shall have regard to such aspects of Government policy on education or anything else as the Secretary of State determines. That, as well as the fact that the strength of the inspectorate is being reduced, undermines his integrity and independence.
  1128
  There are three other aspects in which the Bill is fatally flawed. The smaller inspectorate cannot conceivably supervise the 3,000 or 4,000 local privatised inspectors who are expected to do the job. In a radio interview last year, the Secretary of State referred to
  "a whole new system of inspection, with inspectors, all of whom will have to be registered with HMI and all of whom will have to have a little lion stamp of quality given to them by a central Her Majesty's Inspectorate."
  He also said that they would carry out 6,000 inspections per year.
  The statement that all inspectors would have to be registered and would have to have a lion stamp of quality was untrue. It is only the heads of the privatised firms who will need to be registered with HMI. As to the rest, the Secretary of State admitted in evidence to the Select Committee that even a local butcher might do the job. What is astonishing about the Bill is that it specifies that some members of the inspection team should have no qualification.
  The second fundamental flaw in the Bill is that the provider will pick the regulator. [Interruption.] This has everything to do with the guillotine. The Secretary of State wishes to truncate discussion and cannot provide an answer as to why he has come forward with a bizarre scheme under which the governing bodies of schools to be inspected will pick and pay their own inspectors.
  I have asked a question of the Secretary of State three times, and he was asked it again three times on television. Each time he has failed to answer. I will ask him the question again; this will be the last chance to put it to him because of the guillotine.
  Under Conservative policy for the regulation of public services, the Conservative Administration has insisted that, regulators are wholly independent and at arm's length from providers. That is why the Government insisted on appointing Oftel as a separate body from British Telecom, and why the Secretary of State voted that the Audit Commission and not local authorities should appoint auditors for local authorities. It is why the Secretary of State, as Health Secretary, refused the application of opt-out trust hospitals to be allowed to appoint their own auditors; he insisted that the Audit Commission should do that job. Yet under the Bill, the Secretary of State is allowing the provider of a service to pick and choose its own regulator.
  For the seventh time, I ask the Secretary of State whether there is any parallel in the experience of the Conservative Administration for a public service provider being allowed to pick and pay its own regulator.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: For the seventh time, I will answer. This seems to be the only serious question which the hon. Gentleman can think of asking in the course of these filibustering proceedings. Our proposal is for independent inspectors, approved by HMI, who are separate from and independent of the schools. A school will seek tenders from two inspectors and will choose one to make an independent inspection.
  The proposal of the Labour party is that the providers, the local authorities, should be the only people empowered to inspect. It is Labour party policy that the providers inspect the providers. That seems to be the only issue which the hon. Gentleman can think of on the Bill. He is going back to his Second Reading speech, which he has

  1129
  made umpteen times before. He gives no indication of which amendments he wishes to talk about. He has run out of things to raise on the measure.
  Mr. Straw: Every hon. Member in the House and many people outside will have heard that complete evasion of the question which I put to the Secretary of State. He has no answer, because there is no answer. There is no parallel to the measure in the experience of the Conservative Administration. It is eccentric even in terms of the awful experience of the Administration. Never before have they slipped down the path of allowing providers to pick their own regulators. We hope that they will never do so again. We know why the Secretary of State does not want the Bill discussed and why he seeks to avoid discussing it in public. No one understands how a system under which schools individually can pick and pay their own inspectors can lead to consistent standards of inspection.
  The last fundamental flaw in the measure is that there is no provision for the inspection of a school in the middle of the four-year cycle of privatised company inspections which the Bill provides for. It is as though the Secretary of State thinks that, once he has the cycle running, problems in schools will emerge only once every four years, timed conveniently to fit in with the visit of the privatised company inspectors.
  Serious points have been raised by the hon. Members for Chichester for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and by a great many Conservative authorities. What if the authority wants to do better than the privatised system of inspection which the Bill proposes? There has been no clear answer.
  All we have heard from the Secretary of State is waffle about the other powers which local authorities may have, without any explanation of why he is removing the power of local authorities to inspect schools. If he is saying that they have other powers to inspect, and that they can inspect at any time, why is it necessary to remove section 77(3) which gives them an implicit power to inspect? If they have all those powers, and if they can go in at any time to inspect, why remove that power?
  I think that the Secretary of State's explanation is that he does not want local authorities to duplicate the four-yearly cycle of inspection. He is nodding assent. He cannot have it both ways. If he is saying that, despite the removal of section 77(3), local authorities have power to duplicate inspections in the four-yearly cycle, he has no reason to remove section 77(3).
  The truth, which is known by the Secretary of State's officials and by every local authority, including those that are otherwise benign towards this Administration, is that the removal of section 77(3) and the restrictions in clause 15 of the Bill will mean that authorities will have neither the power to inspect between inspections nor the money to pay for those inspections.
  The consequence is that the Bill will become a charter for low and lowering standards in schools. It means that, if a problem arises in a school and the authority, against the wishes of the governing body, believes that a school should be the subject of an inspection, apart from a reserve power in the hands of HMCI, nothing can happen to that
  1130
  school. All that will happen is that the problems will get worse and may fester for up to four years. The Secretary of State has to address that problem much more seriously.
  I will tell hon. Members why the Secretary of State is so resistant. He knows that the consequence is that schools will go uninspected and unsupervised for four years—in other words, for the lifetime of children in an infants school. So why is the Secretary of State refusing to allow the local authorities to have any serious role? I will tell my hon. Friends why. It is because he has a hatred of local authorities.
  We have seen that hatred in other respects, including his removal of local authorities from health authorities and of any local authority role in respect of further education. We know from the hostility that, I am afraid to say, the Secretary of State shows to Conservative authorities that he dislikes and despises the idea that locally elected people should be there to speak up for the voters about the education service in their area.
  It is ironic that we are debating a guillotine motion on a Bill which dismembers Her Majesty's inspectorate after 150 years of fine service to education on the day of the publication of the last fully independent report—if the Government were elected—of Her Majesty's inspectorate. The report spells out the need for a much stronger and more effective inspectorate, for it shows that 30 per cent. of children in our primary and secondary schools continue to receive a raw deal. It shows that standards have not improved in the past year and did not improve in the previous two years.
  The Government have been in power for 13 years. They have introduced three major education Bills—in 1980, 1986 and 1988. In none of those Bills did they seek to do anything to reform the ramshackle arrangements for school inspection. So, in a panic and in their dying days, the Government are pushing through this ill-considered, crackpot measure to privatise the local schools inspectorates and destroy HMI.
  The Bill will lead only to lower standards. There is no mandate for it. There is no justification for railroading it through. We shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight and repeal it on entry to office.
  7.1 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the parents charter. It makes new arrangements for regular four-yearly inspections of all schools, reporting back to parents, and new inspections for comparative tables of performance not only in examinations but in terms of truancy and staying on rates, destination of pupils and so on.
  The way in which we have conducted our debates in the past day and a half so far of our proceedings, will make the public feel that the parents charter has been debated in a curious way by the House of Commons on Report. Indeed, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that the readers of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph will probably have a clearer notion of what changes parents will experience than some people who read part of Hansard, because, although both sides originally agreed that one day was sufficient for the Report and Third Reading of the Bill, we have found it

  1131
  necessary to move a timetable motion to get the proceedings back on the rails and finish them in reasonable time. That is because of what happened yesterday evening.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Leader of the House, spoke at the beginning of the debate. He was not present during the proceedings yesterday.
  Dr. Cunningham: Neither was the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Clarke: Neither was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but he was better advised about what occurred. [Interruption.] The absence of the hon. Member for Copeland yesterday is the only possible explanation for his disingenuousness. With an almost straight face, he tried several times to pretend that there was no filibuster yesterday evening. There is no point in our lingering on the matter, because the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) plainly acknowledged at 10 o'clock last night that there had been a filibuster.
  We conducted our proceedings in a curious way. We began with new clause 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). At one point she agreed with me that we were discussing—
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No. Let me explain. The hon. Gentleman needs to be better informed about what happened yesterday.
  New clause I dealt with a narrow but undoubtedly important point about complaints. It gave rise to a three-hour debate, in which just about every aspect of inspection of schools was discussed. With great ingenuity, all those who spoke kept within order. We had a debate which, had it not been in order, might have sounded like a Second Reading debate on inspection of schools and the parents charter. It was rather reminiscent of the debate that we have just had. I am glad to say that my hon. Friends who represent West Sussex were particularly successful on both occasions in giving enormous amounts of careful and detailed attention to what is known as the West Sussex question.
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a second. It is the hon. Gentleman's time that we are taking.
  I then replied to the long three-hour debate. I replied with courtesy to every hon. Member who had spoken, including the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who had made a long speech about a new clause which did not apply to Scotland or Dumbarton. I was repeatedly intervened upon. If the hon. Member for Copeland reads the proceedings, he will see that, when I began to realise what was going on, I declined to give way when several hon. Members sought to intervene. I said in my simple way, as my usual trusting and naive self, that I was not sure whether the Bill was being filibustered, but that I would not allow the debate to go on any longer.
  I answered all the points raised in that debate. Indeed, they were the same points that the hon. Member for Blackburn has just raised. After that, it became obvious that there was a filibuster, because the next three hours went by with meandering progress through the remainder of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Wait a minute. The hon. Gentleman has had his turn. I am about to refer to him. If I give way too often, I shall be accused of speaking for too long.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn, who has just sought to intervene in my speech again, described what would have happened if we had not brought proceedings to an end. He said of the Government:
  "If they had been willing to debate these matters through the night, as we were, and then to ensure that there was sufficient time next week, they would have got their Bill, but the truth is that they are now in total panic over this measure. They know that even with the guillotine tomorrow they have no chance of getting the Bill through the other place and then back here if an election is called for 9 April."—[0fficial Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1040.]
  The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was trying to speak about the Bill as near to for ever as he could make it, and certainly into next week. He had mistakenly calculated that in that way he might prevent the Bill from completing its stages and receiving Royal Assent before the general election.
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: In a moment. There could be no other purpose of yesterday's proceedings. I give way to the hon.
  Member for Copeland. I hope that he realises that he is taking part in a debate which timetables a discussion which was filibustered in a fairly ridiculous fashion by the Opposition.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for eventually giving way. Ministers' definition of filibuster seems to be rather like their definition of recession—something that was not occurring. I read the statistics into the record because, like the Leader of the House, I can also read Hansard. All the interventions and speeches made by Conservative Members are on the record for the Secretary of State to see. There was no question of filibuster on this side of the House. Again today, twice as much time has been taken up by Conservative Members as Opposition Members. Who is filibustering?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot continue to deny that there was a filibuster—although he did so with apparent success in keeping a straight face—when I have just read out his hon. Friend's description of the Opposition's filibustering purposes.
  If the Opposition had told us today that they did not wish to debate the timetable motion, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would have moved it on the nod and we could have gone straight into the debate and had six and a half hours' further discussion of the amendments. But they did not. The Opposition decided to debate the timetable motion and use up the time for debate on the Bill. The reason is that if we had had a full and proper debate yesterday until 10 pm and then had another debate today until 10 pm, we would have had far more time on Report than the Opposition ever contemplated requiring or previously asked for. I have come to the conclusion that they do not wish to proceed to most of the amendments, because they have been exhaustively considered in Committee already or because they have been raised with ingenuity in the course of yesterday's debate on new clause 1 or in today's debate.
  I was looking forward to debating new clause 10, which was the only other new clause that I intended to debate. The hon. Member for Blackburn has recklessly tabled what he says is the Labour party's policy on education. I

  1133
  do not believe that the Labour party has a policy on education worthy of the name. He was going to debate this amazing quango that the Opposition want to set up to do all the things that the Government keep thinking of and are bringing forward now. I suspect that the reason the hon. Gentleman has kept this debate going until after 7 o'clock is that he has realised that, if he is not careful, we shall reach it and have the chance of discussing, in order, precisely what the Labour party is putting forward, the pathetic rabbit of an idea that it has been peddling for far too long in response to our reforms.
  The one point that has been raised persistently today is what I call the West Sussex question—the question of the rights of entry of local authorities and how far the new statutory arrangements for comprehensive four-year inspections and reporting back to parents might exclude other rights of entry or other inspection arrangements of the kind in West Sussex.
  Yesterday, two of my right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex joined in and raised this point. Today, two more have raised it. They are all in their places now: my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Yesterday, they were joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), who has also raised the question of league tables.
  The pretence by the hon. Member for Blackburn that my Back-Bench colleagues are in some way agreeing with the Labour party's policy and going along with his attempt to drive a coach and horses through the Bill by providing for a local authority monopoly of inspection of local authority schools is ridiculous. This is a complete and utter myth. They are raising, as supporters of the Bill, the question of what will happen to other rights of entry and other systems of inspection.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to use more time. Presumably he will claim that I have been making very long speeches. He need not worry. He will have plenty of opportunities to stop us reaching new clause 10. The standing commission will not be reached. He does not have to be so troubled. The Labour party's policy, which would take only a couple of minutes of our time if debated seriously, is not likely to be reached. He will find other ways of stamping on that debate.
  When it comes to rights of entry, I have already repeatedly made it clear to the hon. Member for Blackburn and others that all local authorities will retain clear rights of entry where they are exercising a statutory duty or at the invitation for any purpose of the governors or the head teachers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West and my other right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex have asked about these rights of entry. I will not set them all out. Where statutory duties are concerned, they are very wide ranging. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, they have a right to require entry to check up on health and safety.
  Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is about a guillotine. It has nothing to do with the various aspects of the Bill. I hope that you will rule accordingly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: A number of hon. Members have gone very wide, including the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). None the less, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would take account of what has been said.
  Mr. Clarke: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it really is rather perverse. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester spoke for 35 minutes, completely in order, on the West Sussex question and we had several detailed exchanges on this. If I am allowed to say that the timetable motion will still permit us to discuss this if we make good progress on the rest of the rubbish on the amendment paper, to which I do not think that the Opposition seriously intend us to move on, they will discover that there are rights of entry under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, under section 37 of the Education Reform Act 1988, under sections 2 and 4 of the Education Act 1987, and so on. Any statutory duty enables a local authority to intervene. There can also be intervention at the request of the governors. The kind of arrangements described as existing in West Sussex, as I have repeatedly said, do not appear to me to be in any way threatened by the Bill.
  The comprehensive four-year inspection for which the Bill provides is quite different from the annual visits to look at particular aspects of activities carried out in West Sussex now. If the schools invite the local authorities to come in, the West Sussex inspections will continue. If a situation arises in which, for some reason, the governors of a school do not want the local authority to enter, there are still grounds, if the Acts to which I have referred are consulted—where there are serious educational problems or doubts about the application of the curriculum—on which the LEA can enter under a statutory duty and ensure that all is well.
  The other effect of our proceedings which, like my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I regret is that we will not be able to get on to those parts of the Bill that refer to the so-called league tables—comparative tables of examination results, truancy rates, staying-on rates and destinations of pupils. It has become clear yesterday and today that one anxiety of the Opposition is so to conduct those proceedings that we never get on to the discussion of that particularly attractive proposition. Until a few months ago, it was the position of Labour local authorities throughout the country and, as far as I am aware, of the official Labour party that they were against the production of such information for parents—that the whole thing should remain secret.
  No, I will not have the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) shaking his finger at me. He came in to keep this show going yesterday evening and read out his constituency correspondence in order to fill up a little time in the course of one of the new clause debates. That was not a filibuster, according to the hon. Member for Copeland. It was a perfectly reasonable speech in the context of the proceedings, of the kind that the hon. Gentleman invited me to make.

  1135
  The Opposition's conduct will stop us discussing league tables. That is because they used to be against them, although some of their Front-Bench Members seemed to be in favour of them, but their Back Benchers, whenever they intervened, continued to attack the whole principle of making performance information available to parents and to the public in general. That is what lies behind the conduct of these proceedings. That is why we need the timetable motion. The Opposition have discussed all the details of the Bill and talked themselves to exhaustion. There are no remaining issues that they wish to present. They do not want to discuss league tables because they think that they are attractive to the general public. They do not want to reveal the fact that they have many backwoodsmen who would still prefer to keep all this information secret.
  The Opposition are in confusion over inspection and they wish to conceal the fact that they are seeking to preserve the monopoly right of local authorities to inspect their own schools. They are against outside experts, approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate, who do not work for local authorities coming in and inspecting local authority schools and reporting back to the parents. Hon. Gentlemen have therefore resorted to these procedural devices to make sure that no further constructive debate takes place.
  However, we still have some time for debate. The Opposition have used up the best part of three hours by choosing to debate the timetable motion. If they wish to prove me wrong, and they have any sensible contribution left to make, they have more than ample time within which to do so if the House agrees to support the timetable motion, which the absurd antics of the Opposition yesterday have forced the Government to resort to, to enable the Bill to be dealt with properly.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 183.

  Division No. 61]

  [7.19 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amos, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chope, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, W.

  Colvin, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Conway, Derek

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Couchman, James

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

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dicks, Terry

  Bright, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  1136

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Favell, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Madel, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Eric

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gill, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mills, lain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gregory, Conal

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hayward, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Portillo, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Price, Sir David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Raffan, Keith

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Janman, Tim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jessel, Toby

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knapman, Roger

  Shelton, Sir William

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, David

  Sims, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speller, Tony

  1137

  Squire, Robin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wood, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  Walden, George

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fraser, John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Beckett, Margaret

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bellotti, David

  George, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benton, Joseph

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gould, Bryan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Graham, Thomas

  Blair, Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boateng, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Hain, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Caborn, Richard

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cartwright, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dixon, Don

  Lamond, James

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Leighton, Ron

  Eastham, Ken

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Enright, Derek

  Litherland, Robert

  1138

  Livingstone, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Livsey, Richard

  Patchett, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Loyden, Eddie

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McAllion, John

  Redmond, Martin

  McCartney, Ian

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McCrea, Rev William

  Robertson, George

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McFall, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rooker, Jeff

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooney, Terence

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rowlands, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Stott, Roger

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Nellist, Dave

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William

  O'Hara, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

  Interpretation

    Report and Third Reading
    1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
    (2) Stand Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

    Order of proceedings
    2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
    Dilatory Motions
    3. No dilatory Motions with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    Private business
    4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    1139

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

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

    (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

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

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

    Supplemental orders
    6.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    7. Nothing in this Order shall—

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

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

    Recommittal
    8.—(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
    (2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

    Interpretation
    9. In this Order—
    "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
    "the Bill" means the Education (Schools) Bill.

  Orders of the Day

    Education (Schools) Bill
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29 January] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), That the clause (Additional provisions with regard to inspection teams) be read a Second time—
    '( ).—(1) The Chief Inspector may determine that a person who has completed a course of training in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is in need of supervision, induction or probation and he shall maintain a list (the "Conditionally Approved List") of the names of such persons.
    (2) Without prejudice to the power of the chief Inspector to register a person subject to conditions under subsection 10(5)(c), the Chief Inspector may in particular impose conditions which determine the circumstances in which a person whose name is entered on the list maintained under subsection (1) may be a member of an inspection team for the purposes of Schedule 2.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]
    Question again proposed.
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that we are also considering the following amendments: No. 62, in clause 10, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
    '(6A) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the Chief Inspector from imposing conditions under subsection (5)(c) which determine the eligibility of persons acting as a member of an inspection team assisting the registered inspector in conducting an inspection in addition to the provisions regarding such eligibility mentioned in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act.'.
    No. 10, in schedule 2, page 19, line 17, at end insert—

    '5A.—(1) The Chief Inspector shall not admit to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) any person, not being a registered inspector, who in his opinion is not a fit or proper person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection.

    (2)Any person admitted to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) shall be excluded from it if, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, he is unlikely to qualify for a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).

    (3) Any person who has completed a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) and 5(1) and who, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, is adequately trained for the purpose of carrying out inspections under this Act, shall receive a certificate to this effect.

    (4) No person shall carry out an inspection under this Act unless he has received a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).'.

    Mr. Derek Fatchett: Before I was rudely interrupted 21 hours ago, I was trying to conclude my comments on new clause 6, referring particularly to the excellent arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowlsey, South (Mr. O'Hara). He raised five points which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will no doubt answer.
    My hon. Friend spoke of the process of selecting inspectors, the training of registered inspectors, the cascading of training, not only to team leaders, but to other members of the team, the breadth and skills of the inspection team and the finance and support for training. Those points all relate to standards and ensuring not only that we have high standard inspection teams, but that the standards are regular and consistent across the whole education system.

    1141
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science spoke earlier of what he called the West Sussex question. I note that when he raised that question he soon dropped it and failed to answer it. He does not seem to have done too well on the standard assessment test at that stage. The West Sussex question is crucial because it is about how a local authority, providing good quality inspection, can maintain its system. That does not relate only to West Sussex, but to many other parts of the country.
    The Government's proposed system lacks two essential features. The first is a guarantee about the standards of inspectors and inspection; the second is any system of management to follow up that process of inspection.
    The hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) made powerful arguments against the Bill and its proposals. It is clear that the Bill has little support among Conservatives in shire counties with responsibility for education. It is also true that the Bill has little support among Conservative Back Benchers. We saw that yesterday, as few of them were prepared to speak in the debate to support Ministers.
    The Government are isolated on the issue because there is no guarantee of quality or standards. At a time when we know from HMI's annual report that about one third of children are having a raw deal from the education system, it is necessary to have an inspection system that guarantees high and consistent standards. That is why we tabled new clause 6. I hope that the Minister will answer the question how we are to ensure that standard and consistency of inspection.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall speak on this important matter as I have often been the subject of inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors and have in my family someone who has been a distinguished inspector of schools, universities, and other branches of higher and further education for almost 40 years. I am therefore close to the work of Her Majesty's inspectors throughout their long history.
    As I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I could not understand why the standards so well set by Her Majesty's inspectors could not continue under the device established by the Bill. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the inspection teams will comprise people with gumption who have a proper understanding of how schools operate, the tasks that teachers face, how schools respond to educational and curriculum challenges, as well as the challenges posed by the locality in which they operate.
    If we cannot assume that the teams established as a result of the Bill cannot respond to the demands placed on them, which I have partly described, we might as well pack up. I do not see why the devices set out in the Bill—linking members of Her Majesty's inspectors to the new teams to show them the way, and train and assist them in their tasks—should not work. There is no reason why the teams established by the Bill should not improve considerably with time because they will work so hard and so consistently.
    The team members will not have to work partly in schools, partly in offices, partly in Whitehall and partly in other parts of the country as Her Majesty's inspectors have always had to and still do. Instead, they will be on the job most of the time, which of itself will ensure that the teams
    1142
    achieve continually improving standards. That will provide the sort of guarantee that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said was not in the Bill.
    The fact that they are doing the job, and were prepared to do it when they began, will ensure continuity and guarantee consistency. It will also guarantee that parents and schools have the sort of information that such inspections should produce and to which the public are entitled. So the pessimism of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central is misplaced.
    It is wrong to think that only professional experts in school matters can be inspectors. Historically, that is not the case. Some of the greatest headmasters and headmistresses have come from outside the profession. We in the profession did not like it when, for example, Dame Margaret Miles was appointed by the inner London education authority as headmistress of Mayfields school. We thought that she could not possibly do the job, not having been a teacher. In the event, though having come from outside, she proved a most successful head, ILEA having made a good appointment in that case.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed many matters concerning education over 10 years as members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. I am staggered by what he has said and feel sure that, if he and I were still teaching—we taught for many years—he would be one of the first to object to what is proposed by the Government in the Bill. Schools will be advertising for teams to inspect them. I suppose that, if a team produces a good report, it will be hired again. Perhaps one group of inspectors will prove cheaper to employ than another. Having been a teacher for so many years, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can agree with what is proposed, because it is alien to everything educational. It introduces the market place in the classroom.
    Mr. Greenway: I do not see it that way. Why should schools opt for the shoddy and unsatisfactory? I assure the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have discussed education in all its aspects over the years, that I would have been happy for school heads to be elected by teachers, rather than appointed by governors. I cannot imagine teachers employing a head who was soft or who could not do the job. After all, as a teacher, one would suffer greatly if one appointed a head who was not up to the task.
    Despite our resistance to the appointment of Dame Margaret Miles—I can recall others, but I will not go into that now—she came from outside the profession and became a very good head indeed. There was no point in our complaining that she had not been in the classroom prior to being appointed. As I say, she turned out to be a successful head.
    People who have not taught or worked in schools in the way that we have can still know what schools are about and what standards should be achieved. We shall not have ridiculous people appointed to teams. If people are appointed who cannot do the job, they will not survive as team members, so I have confidence in the device proposed by the Bill. Although the hon. Member for Leeds, Central spoke with integrity, his comments were misplaced. It is a pity to challenge in advance the teams who will do the job. They have every chance of being satisfactory and making an increasingly valuable contribution to our schools.

    1143
    The fact that schools will be inspected once every four years—instead of once every 200 years, as has notionally been the case hitherto—represents an improvement. In any event, we no longer want the sort of school inspections that in my experience, used to take place, with lofty HMI teams coming in, not making proper contact with teachers and filling everyone with dread. That type of inspection was not of the highest value. The inspectors did not get through to the needs of the teachers and the problems of the children. While they may have understood the needs, they did not communicate adequately with teachers in the most helpful ways. For all those reasons, I support the Bill's inspection proposals, which are sound and should be given every opportunity to work.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Derek Enright: I was a teacher for 20 years. I taught under Conservative local authorities in Surrey and the old West Riding, and latterly under a Labour-controlled authority in Wakefield metropolitan district. In all three authorities I found the inspection service thoroughly satisfactory and extremely helpful. That goes for the local authority service and the essential back-up of HMI.
    I have the highest regard for the HMI, which is composed of men and women of integrity, perspicacity and, above all, honesty. I have never shared the fears of HMI that some have expressed. On several occasions, I collaborated with the inspectors because I found them totally helpful and constructive. When pursuing what might be described as something of a wild educational idea, they would put it down quite rapidly and were good at pointing out the error of one's ways, but doing so in a positive way.
    So I greatly regret the passing of the inspectorate. Indeed, I cannot understand how the Government could have got themselves into the position of heedlessly throwing away a jewel in the educational crown. I could not understand it until I looked into the backgrounds of the three Ministers responsible. I discovered that they have in common something that may make them antipathetic towards local education authorities. They all went to schools which were members of the Headmasters' Conference.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) went to Epsom college, of which I have fond memories, because there was a strong Young Socialist group there who campaigned to get me appointed to the local council in Epsom. Alas, the group was not entirely successful, and I should make it clear that the Under-Secretary was not a member of that Young Socialist group at that time. The college motto is "Deo non fortuna", which may be translated roughly as, "My God, you must help us because nothing else will." That is precisely what the Ministers concerned must be saying about this measure.
    The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), went to Winchester. "Manners makyth man" is the motto there, and we know some of the strange men whom Winchester has produced. We need not now go into the eccentric views of life that some of them have. Nothing they do bears any relationship to their experience of Her Majesty's inspectorate.
    The Secretary of State attended Nottingham high school, "Lauda finem" being its motto, a good translation
    1144
    of which might be, "Thank God it's finished." That is precisely what the Secretary of State has been saying constantly—that he wants discussion of the Bill over and out of the way. He wants no argument or discussion. That is a disgraceful aim, because the antipathy to LEAs is destroying a valuable asset.
    I accept that some LEAs are stronger than others, just as some areas of the country are richer than others. It is one of the laws of life that some are bound to be better than others; they cannot all be exactly the same. By and large, however—under both Labour and Conservative control—authorities try to do a good job, and are able to keep their feet on the ground. That is why the advisory and inspection services have been so valuable at the lower level.
    I do not shrink from the Secretary of State's sneers about the local inspectorate. Of course some inspectors and advisers will not be as strong as others, but, on the whole, they have proved to be well qualified for their tasks. Before appointing them, we have looked for the qualities that will help to raise education standards.
    The old West Riding education committee was Conservative-controlled. That doughty lady, Mrs. Fitzpatrick, is a great supporter of the Conservative party, and in her day was a leading light of that party in Yorkshire. Under her leadership, the inspection and advisory service flourished: it proved helpful in many ways, and was always available not only to give advice about school subjects, but to engage in troubleshooting.
    Troubleshooting was certainly required—especially when that great Conservative-controlled education committee was setting up comprehensives, which it did so successfully. The Secretary of State said earlier that he wondered why Labour opposed league tables. I am not worried about proper league tables; if the Secretary of State wants to be put in one, he should compare the school that he attended with those attended by his junior Ministers. I suppose that, in comparison with Epsom and Winchester, his school is in division 4, northern selection. A school will prove itself within a community—good or bad.
    When I was helping to set up a new comprehensive in Featherstone in my constituency—where I spent the past 12 years teaching—we had to compete with the existing grammar schools. There were eight for pupils to choose from. In the end, the pupils voted with their feet; not because we had published spurious league tables, but because the local community knew that we were damned good, and that their children would be treated better in a comprehensive school than they would have been in the old grammar schools.
    That was largely because grammar schools were very suspicious of inspectors: they did not like to let them in. What happened under the streaming on which the Secretary of State is so keen? The A stream did all right; half the B stream did okay; the C stream was often consigned to the dustbin. And we are talking about the top 15 per cent.—the ones who were chosen.
    Time and again, inspectors and advisers said that grammar schools would have to change their ways, because they were destroying people. The grammar schools took no notice. In the comprehensive system, we did take notice: we considered a mixture of setting and banding. It was the local advisers who helped us to set up that system, which sent far more people to university than the previous arrangements.

    1145
    My real worry about the inspectorate is this. Three Ministers will be putting a political complexion on what the inspectors do—and that worries me, because the inspectors are directly accountable to the Ministers; they are not independent of them. We have already heard enough of Ministers talking about the curriculum, and then finally getting down to the individual syllabus—to the detriment of that syllabus. Certainly, they do not help educationally in any way: I suspect that their knowledge of the workings of education could be contained in a thimble, and a small one at that. It seems that the sole contribution of the other Secretary of State was to deplore the fact that children watched "Neighbours". What a fine intellectual contribution that was.
    This is a shoddy Bill. I shall vote against it, and I hope that Conservative Members will have the courage to do the same.
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: In Tower Hamlets, we have 21 full-time local education authority inspectors, and one part-time inspector. They were drawn together carefully, and trained to inspect, advise and help school teachers.
    What are those inspectors to do? They do not know what the future holds. If money is to be transferred to the schools, will money be available to keep them in place? Should they go into business and try to set themselves up as leaders of inspection teams? They would probably be deemed over-qualified; they would know too much about schools and education.
    What training will those teams of inspectors receive? How long will the training last, and what will it cover? What will replace the irreplaceable—experience of teacher training, and experience in schools? As I said yesterday, I am very much afraid that people will set themselves up as inspectors in entirely new businesses, with no guidelines on how to price the job. They will not want to overprice it, so they will go for cheap staff—unqualified staff.
    Every adult has some opinion, or prejudice, about education, based either on that person's past education or on what he or she wants for their own children. Those opinions and prejudices often do not stand up to what really happens in a classroom. There is nothing to replace teaching experience and teacher training when it comes to learning what is possible and what is not.
    I have a dream. I would like to see the Secretary of State in front of one of the ever-larger classes of east London kids—bright, lively kids. I should like to see him trying to put some of his ideas into effect. He would soon learn a bit more about what is and what is not possible in education.
    It is important for teachers to have respect for the inspectorate; otherwise the inspections will be of no value. I do not think that teachers will have respect for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker—people who are pig-ignorant about education, and who, after a short training course, will start telling teachers what to do. Often, what they tell teachers to do will be neither practical nor possible.
    I am worried about the damage that will be done in schools by inexperienced people with little knowledge of education—especially to the most vulnerable teachers. Older teachers are already nervous because, under local management of schools, they are the most expensive. They feel that they are under threat. Younger teachers also feel
    1146
    vulnerable, because they are inexperienced and have not yet built up their confidence. Allowing people with no real knowledge of education, apart from a short inspectors' training course, into schools to criticise teachers, advise them, tell them what to do and report on them will damage a great many of our precious teachers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We began this debate some hours ago: indeed, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has had an extra 24 hours in which to improve on the speech that he began to make last night. In the end, he was reduced to repeating some of the stronger points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), which I shall deal with in a moment.
    The only serious point that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central tried to make concerned his worries about who would guarantee standards, and who would manage the system. The answer to that is clear. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman, who did not serve on the Standing Committee, for not having read the Bill. In schedule 2, he will see that HMCI will be the guarantor of standards and will, in effect, be the ultimate manager of the system.
    8 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who knows the education service, did not have those worries. His speech demonstrated great confidence in the system that we are proposing and an open-mindedness about the crucial inclusion of the lay element in inspection that I should have liked to have heard reflected a little more widely in the debate.
    The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) implied that the HMCI for England and the HMCI for Wales would be creatures of Government. Whatever other accusations the hon. Gentleman levels against the Bill, I assure him that that will not be the case. They will be independent statutory office holders for the first time, with departments of their own.
    The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) worried about the future of those who are inspecting in the present system, shortly to be the old system. The best guarantee of the future of any inspector, wherever he works, is the knowledge that the Bill will ensure that inspection becomes a growth business. We shall be increasing the number of inspections of our schools. Wherever they are, in whichever LEA, they will all be inspected every four years, to a nationally approved standard, rigorously upheld by HMCI. Any local inspector worth his or her salt should have no fear for his or her future.
    Mr. Gordon: Business is the key word. Many of the inspectors do not want to go into business. They do not see themselves as business people, nor education as a business. The HMCI will have to operate, even if he is not a creature of the Government, within the parameters of this bizarre Bill.
    Mr. Fallon: Yes, HMCI will operate within the parameters of the Bill, but not to the direct diktat of any Secretary of State, whether Labour or Conservative.
    The hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who spoke to the new clause some hours ago, made a speech that was neatly summarised—I do not know why—by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. All the five points that he

    1147
    raised relate to quality control. He will recall that we spent a great deal of time in Committee discussing the way in which quality control would be exercised over both registered inspectors and their teams. We explained then that the detailed arrangements for securing quality control of school inspection teams will be for HMCI to determine. The Bill supplies a basic framework by making the chief inspector responsible for the registration of inspection team leaders, for the training of them and of potential team members, and for the production of national guidance on the conduct of inspections within which teams will operate. We said quite clearly during the discussion in Committee that it will be for HMCI to decide the basis on which potential team members will be accepted for training, and deemed to have completed the course.
    To suggest, as new clause 6 does, that HMCI should also maintain a list of those whom he considers to be "on probation", or in need of special supervision or induction training, and that he may attach conditions to their employment as inspection team members, although well meaning, is yet another attempt by Labour Members to place on the face of the Bill aspects of quality control that are properly for HMCI to determine.
    It may well be, as I said in Committee, that HMCI will want to keep a particular eye on certain inspectors who have completed the training. How he does that will be up to him. In an extreme case—if a registered inspector seemed to wish to persist in using an inspector who was not in HMI's view competent—HMCI might impose a condition requiring him not to be employed. Whether he chooses to act in this way will, however, be up to HMCI; it is not for us to prescribe in statute.
    The other important safeguard is that it is for the registered inspectors to be confident that those whom they employ are up to the job. The registered inspector knows that his livelihood depends on the quality of the team that he chooses to work with him. If he is successfully to tender for this business, he cannot afford to carry weak or unsuitable team members who will not inspire confidence or help him to win contracts. An incompetent team member might cause him to be struck off the register as no longer able to conduct effective inspections. The registered inspector is best placed to judge on the basis of experience over time, whether a person is able to make a satisfactory contribution to the work of a team.
    HMCI will of course see the reports to which team members have contributed, and will join inspections during which they will see team members at work, but this is no substitute for the day-to-day contact which the registered inspector will have with his team or teams. The focus of HMCI's monitoring will of course be the registered inspector himself, as the person responsible for the quality of the inspections that he conducts.
    It is also likely that HMCI will, from time to time, advise on the need for updating in particular areas, and will expect both registered inspectors and team members to take advantage of whatever training they recommend in that respect. Here again, the prime responsibility for ensuring that team members are fully competent and continue to up-date their skills and knowledge as necessary will rest with the registered inspector.
    The hon. Member for Knowsley, South made the fair point that a registered inspector will always be working with exactly the same team, so I must say a word about that. The registered inspector will have to choose his team according to the inspection task in hand. There will be
    1148
    those who are qualified to inspect in some subjects—I pick ancient Greek at random—who are likely to be working on a far more intermittent basis than those whose specialty is, for example, French.
    That does not invalidate the argument that the registered inspector is best placed to judge the competence of a team member. If he finds someone's work unsatisfactory, even on the basis of one inspection, he is likely to be wary of using that person again. Furthermore, that inspector will not find it easy to gain further work if he has not obtained a suitable reference from his previous team leader.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: The Under-Secretary has slightly misunderstood me. I was talking not about the registered inspector who might have different members of different teams but about the team member who might work for different inspectors on different teams. I spoke about the problems of controlling the quality of the varying team member.
    Mr. Fallon: I understand that. As I said, the primary control is with the registered inspector who is leading the team and who must at all times satisfy himself that the team member is competent and efficient. The ultimate control is with HMCI, on whom that crucial registration depends.
    Mr. John McFall: Two points arise from that. First, if there is a personality clash and the registered inspector feels that a person is not competent, that member of the team could be disadvantaged because of the opinion of one person—the registered inspector. Secondly, if the registered inspector feels that someone is not appropriate to be on his or her team, what procedures are envisaged to inform other registered inspectors of the incompetence of that member of the team?
    Mr. Fallon: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that I find his first point somewhat schizophrenic. Most Labour Members have been worrying about whether the competence of the team member will be good enough. Again, it is for the registered inspector to satisfy himself that he is employing competent people.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I said that a team member would be unlikely to obtain further work if he was not able to furnish a reference from his previous team leader because that is the first thing for which the other registered inspector to which the hon. Gentleman referred is likely to ask.
    I deal now with amendment No. 62. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is not here. I recognise that he has shifted the content of the amendment from that of a similar amendment that he moved in Committee, but this one suffers from the same disadvantage. If I understand the hon. Gentleman's purpose aright, it is to make it clear that the chief inspector can define the types of qualifications, experience and expertise that team members should have for particular inspection tasks—for example, for examining special units in main-stream schools or specific subject areas or age groups—and that the chief inspector should be able to enforce such guidance by making it part of the conditions under which an inspector is registered.
    We made it clear in Committee that the way in which HMCI uses his discretion to set conditions and guidelines will be up to him. We should expect him to include—this

    1149
    may assist the hon. Members for Truro and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), who is standing in for him—in the national guidelines for the conduct of inspections guidance on the nature of the team required to inspect different types of school and the competences to be expected of team members.
    One condition expected to be attached to each inspector's registration is that he and his team should then follow the national guidelines in carrying out inspections. Of course, all will receive training which will be designed to give them a full working knowledge of the guidelines and their implications, and the inspector and his team will then be monitored by HMCI and by the school authorities which employ them to ensure that they observe the guidelines in practice and are competent to offer an accurate report on the school.
    Therefore, it is for HMCI to set out the necessary competencies in his conditions and guidance. This is a matter which we are properly leaving up to him. I assure the House that he has all the discretion that he needs to set any of the conditions that he wants. The Bill does not fetter him in any way; so, although the amendment has been refined, it is not necessary.
    Amendment No. 10, on the training of inspectors, falls into the same trap as new clause 6 in seeking to set out further rules and conditions within which HMCI must work.
    I repeat that no one will be able to serve on an inspection team unless he has completed an approved course of training. It follows that HMCI will want to issue some form of written notification that training has been completed. The details of how that will be managed are for HMCI to determine. If HMCI believed that an applicant was not a fit and proper person to take part in school inspections, he would not allow that person to join a course of training.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is not it clear that these courses will be extremely rigorous, that they will deal with highly specialised areas and that what my hon. Friend says should be interpreted in that context?
    Mr. Fallon: I am happy to confirm that, especially to those who have come only recently to the debate. Schedule 2(4) states that nobody will be involved in an inspection or be able to conduct an inspection of a school in England unless he has completed a course of training provided by the chief inspector or a course of training that complies with arrangements approved by him. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the assurance of rigour that he seeks.
    HMCI can also be expected to ensure that obviously incompetent candidates who get through any initial sift do not complete the course of training. That is simple common sense, and I suggest that there is no need to provide for it in legislation. On that basis, I invite the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Fatchett: The Under-Secretary accused me of having limited knowledge of the Bill because I have not served on the Committee. He offered that as an apology or an excuse for me. No similar excuse can be made for him. He is the Minister, he introduced the Bill and served on the Committee, but apparently he has very little knowledge of
    1150
    the Bill. I presume that the Government put him on the Committee so that he could not do any further damage to the education system if allowed to run wild in other directions. Certainly it has not improved his knowledge of the Bill.
    The Under-Secretary claims that the chief inspector is unfettered in his powers and activities. I remind him that clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State to give powers of direction to the chief inspector and that he must follow those directions. That does not seem to be an unfettered relationship.
    Mr. Fallon: We debated clause 2(5) at some length in Committee. Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of it or had he read the clause a little more closely, he would know that the chief inspector for England does not have to follow the Secretary of State's directions—he must only "have regard" to them. He does not have to comply with the directions issued by the Secretary of State. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now correct what he said.
    Mr. Fatchett: I did not serve on the Committee, but I read the report of the debate, so I remember the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the Minister of State. Perhaps the Under-Secretary was not present at the time, but if he, understood anything about the legal interpretation of statutes, he would know that "have regard to" is virtually a mandatory obligation on the chief inspector. The chief inspector does not have unfettered powers. He is wholly fettered in that respect.
    The Under-Secretary also said that the Bill contained a system of management. I suggest that he reads schedule 2(10) about action plans. He will find that there is no process of management whatsoever after an inspector's report is made on a particular school.
    The best summary of the Bill was made not by the Under-Secretary but by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) last night: the Bill is potentially incestuous. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was desperately looking for reasons to support it. He asked for some assurance that in the majority of cases the inspectors would be up to the job. The Under-Secretary said, "Yes, in the vast majority of cases." That may be true, but we are concerned about all cases. We want every inspector to be up to the job. We are not satisfied with any other guarantee.
    The Bill contains the incestuous ability to maintain low standards and to give people an interest in maintaining low standards. We shall now force a Division on new clause 6. The reason could not be summed up better than by the final comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South last night. He gave the example of the advertisement doing the rounds of the inspectors, which says:
    "V. cheapo licensed plumber and HMI schools inspector. All types of schools and drains inspected. Estimates free. Guaranteed customer satisfaction. Very keen prices."— [Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1032.]
    That is why we support new clause 6—we want standards and guarantees of standards.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 229.

    Division No. 62]

    [8.18 pm

    AYES

    Anderson, Donald

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    1151

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Livsey, Richard

    Ashton, Joe

    Loyden, Eddie

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McCartney, Ian

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Battle, John

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Beckett, Margaret

    McFall, John

    Bell, Stuart

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Bellotti, David

    McLeish, Henry

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    McMaster, Gordon

    Benton, Joseph

    McNamara, Kevin

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Madden, Max

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Maginnis, Ken

    Boyes, Roland

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Marek, Dr John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cartwright, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Meacher, Michael

    Cousins, Jim

    Meale, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Michael, Alun

    Crowther, Stan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Cryer, Bob

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Cummings, John

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Darling, Alistair

    Morgan, Rhodri

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

    Morley, Elliot

    Dewar, Donald

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Dixon, Don

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Eastham, Ken

    Mullin, Chris

    Enright, Derek

    Murphy, Paul

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Nellist, Dave

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fatchett, Derek

    O'Brien, William

    Flannery, Martin

    O'Hara, Edward

    Flynn, Paul

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Foster, Derek

    Parry, Robert

    Foulkes, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Fraser, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Fyte, Maria

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Galloway, George

    Redmond, Martin

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Robertson, George

    George, Bruce

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Rooney, Terence

    Gordon, Mildred

    Ruddock, Joan

    Graham, Thomas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Short, Clare

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hain, Peter

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

    Hardy, Peter

    Snape, Peter

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Soley, Clive

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Home Robertson. John

    Straw, Jack

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Illsley, Eric

    Turner, Dennis

    Ingram, Adam

    Vaz, Keith

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Kennedy, Charles

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Lamond, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Leighton, Ron

    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Litherland, Robert

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Alexander, Richard

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Ashby, David

    Amess, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Amos, Alan

    Atkinson, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Baldry, Tony

    1152

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Batiste, Spencer

    Hayes, Jerry

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Benyon, W.

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hind, Kenneth

    Boswell, Tim

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

    Bottomley, Peter

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Brazier, Julian

    Irvine, Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Jack, Michael

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

    Jackson, Robert

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Janman, Tim

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Jessel, Toby

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Burns, Simon

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Burt, Alistair

    Key, Robert

    Butler, Chris

    Kilfedder, James

    Butterfill, John

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Carrington, Matthew

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Cash, William

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Knapman, Roger

    Chapman, Sydney

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Chope, Christopher

    Knox, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Latham, Michael

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Lightbown, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Conway, Derek

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Lord, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Couchman, James

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Cran, James

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Devlin, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Dicks, Terry

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Dover, Den

    Madel, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Malins, Humfrey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mans, Keith

    Eggar, Tim

    Maples, John

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fallon, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Farr, Sir John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Favell, Tony

    Mates, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Mills, Iain

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Forth, Eric

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Freeman, Roger

    Mitchell, Sir David

    French, Douglas

    Moate, Roger

    Fry, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gale, Roger

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gill, Christopher

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Norris, Steve

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Paice, James

    Gregory, Conal

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Grist, Ian

    Pawsey, James

    Hague, William

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Price, Sir David

    Hannam, Sir John

    Raffan, Keith

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

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Redwood, John

    Harris, David

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    1153

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rost, Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walker, Bill (Tside North)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Waller, Gary

    Shelton, Sir William

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Ward, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Warren, Kenneth

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Watts, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wells, Bowen

    Speller, Tony

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Squire, Robin

    Whitney, Ray

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wilshire, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Sumberg, David

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Thorne, Neil

    Mr. Irvine Patrick.

    Thurnham, Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Education (Schools) Bill
      New clause 7

        ADDITIONAL DUTIES WITH REGARD TO SCHOOL INSPECTIONS
        '( ).—It shall be the duty of any registered inspector conducting an inspection under section 9, when requested to do so by the Chief Inspector, to report—

        (a) as to whether proper practices have been observed in the compilation of information required to be provided under section 16 by the proprietor or governing body of the school; and

        (b) on any other matter connected to such information required under section 16.'.—[Mr. Murphy.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause refers to the additional duties of privatised or registered inspectors, especially in relation to the information required to be provided under clause 16 on the so-called league tables.
        The new clause will ensure that schools are compared and proper practices adhered to, and it goes to the heart of the Bill. In the past two days, there has been much reference to the benefits and good aspects of the Bill. The new clause touches on the very essence of the competitiveness of the proposed system and the market forces that will govern education in England and Wales. It is a safeguard against the excesses of the folly of the Bill. The people of Wales involved in education, whether teachers, parents, inspectors or anyone else in the education world, are deeply opposed to the Bill and would be very much in favour of the mitigating effect of the new clause.
        The Bill is opposed by the Welsh branch of the Association of County Councils, the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Welsh County Education Officers Society,
        1154
        the Welsh National Union of Teachers, and the Welsh division of the National Association of Head Teachers. Indeed, all those who know anything about education in the Principality believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed and that the new clause will be a means of mitigating some of its worst effects.
        The Government have, however, chosen to impose their dogma on Wales, when not a scrap of evidence suggests that we need either league tables to compare secondary or primary schools, or private companies of inspectors to do a job that has been done successfully by Her Majesty's inspectors of Welsh schools since 1907.
        League tables and the proposed privatised inspectors are based on the marketplace rather than sound educational principles. The Government have sculptured the education service in the Principality into a monument to market forces. A school's viability will now depend not on its educational worth but on the number of pupils that it attracts, and open enrolment and local management of schools provide the preconditions. In turn, viability will depend on the school's so-called "success" based on the ludicrous and silly notion of league tables comparing schools. Pupils will be seen as a financial resource and teachers will "teach to the test". All 59 of our Welsh inspectors will be drawn into that ludicrous and daft jungle.
        Schools will go for the cheapest and least stringent inspectors and the divide between our poorer and more wealthy areas will be widened even further. The relationship between pupil and teacher and between inspector and school will be reduced to the cash nexus.
        Those market forces and a privatised inspectorate would not produce proper information for a useful comparison between schools. That is why if, by any chance the Bill becomes law, the registered inspectors would have to look at the nature of the information.
        Today, the Secretary of State for Wales, in an answer to a written parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), announced some details about how the inspectorate in Wales will be organised. What he said is inadequate and unsatisfactory. The creation of private companies of inspectors will fly in the face of more than 80 successful years in the history of Welsh education. The Welsh Office has ignored that, and we are deeply concerned that there is no commitment to a distinct Welsh inspectorate like the one that has existed for nearly 100 years. We compare that with the situation in Scotland, where the Government have already committed HMI Scotland to continuing. In Wales, the distinctive flavour of a Welsh inspectorate will be overturned because of a written parliamentary answer.
        The Secretary of State has still given no date when the system will be introduced and the Welsh Office is deliberately suppressing the Valerie Adams internal review into the Welsh inspectorate. We have asked the Secretary of State many times to reveal what is in the report. The Minister of State, Welsh Office said only last week that he would not give the House or the people of Wales the results of that internal survey.
        HMI in Wales, which is deeply threatened by the Bill, has been responsible for much that is good in Welsh education. Recently, when the House considered the GCSE and the national curriculum, the Welsh inspectorate gave our curriculum a distinctly Welsh flavour. For example, it initiated a GCSE in Welsh history in the English language, which is taught throughout Wales.

        1155
        Welsh inspectors advise on research projects specific to Wales and successfully liaise with schools, colleges and universities.
        There is a consensus on education in Wales. We have no teacher baiting, there are very few opted-out schools and there is little enthusiasm for the views of the Centre for Policy Studies. A dogmatic system of education has been foisted on us by the English Department of Education and Science and it is not wanted in Wales. From 1993, the Welsh Office will have responsibility for all Welsh education. With a curriculum council for Wales and a strong and vigorous HMI in Wales, much could be achieved. But much will be destroyed by the Bill.
        If the Government insist on league tables, new clause 7 is vital. Otherwise, schools will go for the cheapest and less able inspectors. We must also take into account the present cost of inspections in the Principality. Given that it takes six months to plan, inspect and report on a school, and that some 15 to 20 inspectors may take part in the inspection of an average secondary school for about two weeks, we estimate that the inspection of an average secondary school in Wales costs about £80,000 and a primary school costs about £40,000. Where on earth will schools in Wales, which must suffer under the burden of local management, find that much money for proper inspections? It simply will not work.
        The Welsh people deserve better. We do not want our schools to be inspected at the cheapest price, and we do not want to see an end to our Welsh inspectorate. We want an education standards commission to be set up in Wales, which will stand for independence, professionalism and the highest possible quality. The Welsh people will overwhelmingly reject the proposals at the forthcoming general election.
        Mr. Peter Thurnham: I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee on the Bill, and I want to intervene only briefly to comment on clause 7. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, he will comment on whether this clause would allow the inspectors to act in something like an advisory role? I am very much in favour of all that the Government are doing in the Bill, and I am most disappointed to have heard the comments of the Opposition spokesman, who does not want to see examination league results.
        It has been a great shock to the people of Bolton to find out that their primary schools came out so low in tests on seven-year-olds; we came out in the bottom third of the country, when we are used to coming out in the top third. Is it possible for inspectors who have a good deal of knowledge to give a little advice where such advice might be needed?
        I have in mind one or two schools which could benefit from a bit of additional promotion. A very good primary school in my constituency is Egerton county primary school. The headmaster, Mr. Brian Hall, had an opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have been asked by Mr. Hall to present to the Minister a memento of his visit to Bolton, which I have here. I should like to give this excellent promotional material for the school to my hon. Friend, who is now taking his seat on the Front Bench, at the end of this short debate.
        Is it possible for a school such as Egerton county prrimary school to be given some advice on how it can promote itself? It is an excellent school but, although it has over 100 pupils and gives a good education, it is affected
        1156
        by falling school rolls. Would it be possible for such a school to be advised by people such as inspectors on whether, for instance, the small school special allowance could be managed in a way more favourable to the school? Although it is in a metropolitan area, it might perhaps be more easily looked after as if it were a rural school because of its location on the northern edge of the borough where there is no high density population immediately adjacent to it. If the school suffers a severe reduction in numbers it can be seriously affected by the way in which the reforms work.
        Will my hon. Friend comment, therefore, on whether inspectors could help fulfil, under the new clauses, any sort of advisory role or whether elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for inspectors to help schools in that way? We would welcome anything in this Bill which would help such schools to promote and improve themselves.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: If I had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring in a tea towel and hold it in front of himself as if he had something to hide, I could have brought in a matching tea towel. They are obviously generally on sale. A company, I think in Birmingham, must have been distributing them round schools. I was given one by one of my godchildren for Christmas. So far it has hung on the kitchen door, but if we really have to go in for this, I suppose I too could bring one in and wave it around.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must discourage this sort of presentation in the Chamber.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Hughes: I was indicating that I had not thought of bringing in a tea towel, but obviously the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) thought it a good idea.
        I want to speak in support of new clause 7. I support the specific wording of the new clause and am sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He will know, I think, that I owe the majority of my school education to the Principality, in Glamorgan and in Breconshire. Educational standards, which in Wales are generally far higher than in England, together with the Welsh education tradition, must be retained at all costs. The Welsh inspectorate has certainly done a good job.
        What I want specifically to do is push at a door which I believe is already partly open. I wonder whether I could have the Minister's attention to this specific point. New clause 7 seeks to add to clauses 9 and 16 the possibility of reporting on specific items in relation to schools. Clause 9 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that the inspections cover city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts; that is clear from clause 9 of the Bill as drafted.
        Clause 16 of the Bill as drafted says that the Secretary of State may exercise his power to make regulations under this section, and shall do so with a view to making available information which is likely to
        "assist parents in choosing schools for their children"
        and, in clause 16(3),
        "increase public awareness of the quality of education provided by the schools concerned and of the educational standards achieved in these schools."
        The Minister may be aware that at present there is no requirement that city technology colleges should operate

        1157
        an appeal system against refusal of admission. I raised this matter at Education Question Time the other day with the Secretary of State, and I had a helpful reply. He said,
        "I will certainly consider the…point, because it is our aim to put CTCs on a level with others in regard to funding and other aspects." [Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c.803]
        The clear implication is that because they are publicly funded, at least in part, all the same criteria should apply to CTCs and their users as to other state-funded schools. I ask the Minister as a matter of urgency to consider this. I appreciate that it cannot exactly be done by means of the funding as set out in the new clause, but it comes within the sort of issue that is being probed by the new clause and by my question. Will the Minister consider amending the Bill before it finishes its passage through Parliament to require an appeals system against refusal of admission to city technology colleges?
        It will be useful to know—it does not require publication of names—how the appeal system works and how many appeals succeed comparatively across the country. Such information may follow, but it is not clear that it will follow from the Bill as drafted. There is an appeal system in all other schools, and comparative data as to what percentage succeed and fail would be useful. It could not, however, be done in relation to city technology colleges because there is no requirement for such a procedure.
        I have talked to the principal and staff at Bacon's college in Docklands, and I can tell the Minister that one of the complaints about the present legal structure, procedure and regulations is that there is no provision for any re-hearing of applications for admission which are turned down if, as happens, a city technology college is a popular school and is likely to have a full roll and full admissions. It is vital to have some clearly independent way of reviewing the decisions about selection made across the range.
        We have had debates and differences about CTCs, and I do not tonight want to go into those issues again. I do not want now to argue again the merits of city technology colleges. I simply want to press the Minister tonight to say that he will be serious in joining his Secretary of State in seeing whether, before the Bill completes its passage, this omission in the original legislation can be corrected and pupils and their parents in this one category of school, looked after by inspectors and included in this legislation, can have the same rights as pupils and parents in other schools. I do not think that the principle is objected to, so I hope that we can agree on establishing a new practice. It must be done now if it is to be of any benefit to those who are currently applying with a view to admission from September 1992.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want briefly to mention some points that concern people in Wales who are not themselves education specialists like me but who have inspectors as constituents and who obviously have a large number of parents as constituents too.
        I am particularly concerned by the slapdash nature of the statement produced by way of a substitute, namely, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) instead of being made in a proper statement to the House. It is not good that there is no Welsh Office
        1158
        Minister here tonight, but possibly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be able to answer my questions.
        Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not offensive that what has been said about Wales was actually released in a written answer that, had the House proceeded as was intended in the original timetable, would not have been seen by Welsh Members until after the debate had ended? The Welsh Office is trying to stifle debate in the same way as it is trying to stifle publication of the report.
        Mr. Morgan: My right hon. Friend rightly mentions the precedural inadequacies and the way that legislation has been slipped through as if Welsh education was some sort of afterthought by Tory Ministers. After the election, the Tories will be an afterthought for the people of Wales, which will perhaps be poetic justice.
        The Valerie Adams report, prepared by a distinguished former Ministry of Defence civil servant for the Welsh Office, was heavily critical of the ideas for privatising HMI. Everybody in education knows that. We are not allowed to see that report because we are only MPs, whereas Welsh Office Ministers think that they are superior to everyone else and cannot allow those who represent the people of Wales to see that report. That is an appalling slight and puts paid to any idea of democratic debate. The Minister of State shakes his head. Perhaps he thinks that no reports should be published. What a wonderful advertisement for open government and the citizens charter.
        The written reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) covers two full columns of Hansard, but is mostly long-winded educational gobbledygook. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, who represents Darlington, a well known area somewhere on the northern edge of north Wales, will be able to explain it. The only place where the answer attempts to tell the people of Wales how the new privatised or semi-privatised inspectorate of schools will work is where it says:
        "much will depend upon the rate at which local authority advisory and inspection services are able to adapt to the requirements of the new system, and upon the availability of independent registered inspectors able to work in Wales. I intend to keep the situation under review."
        There is the smack of firm government. What is meant by
        "independent registered inspectors able to work in Wales."?
        Obviously the Secretary of State for Wales has worked out that there is a difference between Wales and England because of Welsh language, history and culture. He mentions that in the first part of his written answer where he says that HMIs have to be different from those in England because of the
        "distinctive features of the education system in Wales, notably Welsh-medium education and the teaching of the Welsh language and Welsh history and culture."—[Official Report. 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 576–77.]
        That is so obvious that even the Secretary of State can work it out, but he is ignorant of another major difference between HMI in England and that in Wales. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are a bit slow on the uptake and ask me to speak more slowly. However there is pressure of time.
        The Secretary of State's reply does not mention that the inspectorate in Wales covers primary and secondary education while in England the inspectorate cover primary or secondary. There is no reference to that essential

        1159
        difference, which has existed for 80 years, and it is because the Welsh inspectorate is much smaller and has to be more flexible. How will that be handled under the new system? The Secretary of State has not thought it necessary to refer to that other major difference.
        Scotland is to be allowed to continue with its inspectorate which will not be messed about by the right-wing ideologues who advise the Conservative party in these matters, whereas it was thought that Wales was suitable for experiment. Most people in Wales believe that, as in Scotland, the education system is essential for a society which still lags 15 per cent. behind average incomes in the United Kingdom. It is an essential part of the way that families in Wales believe that they can produce a future for their children that is better than the future they had. The same belief exists in Scotland, and that belief has led Scottish Office Ministers to think that they must not tamper with the inspectorate in Scotland. Scotland has been totally left out of the legislation but Wales has been dragged in.
        It could be said that Scotland's education system is even more different from the rest of the United Kingdom than that of Wales because it has a longer and more distinct history. However, by and large Scotland does not have a great linguistic difference between it and England. Therefore, there was every reason for totally exempting Wales from this ideological right-wing Tory nonsense.
        I shall now deal with the nature of the inspections. The Secretary of State for Wales is not in the Chamber, although he is in the House. In his written reply he said that the working of the new system would depend upon the availability of independent registered inspectors who were able to work in Wales. I assume that he thinks it would be wrong to bring in people from Amersham, Birmingham, Cornwall or other places to inspect schools in Wales because, quite apart from not understanding the language, they would not understand the distinct aspects of education in Wales. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, and said that the inspection service in Wales will have to be Welsh-based. The Secretary of State is really saying, "Well, we do not know where we will get these inspectors in Wales, and I want to keep my options open."
        If no new inspectors suitable for the privatised system emerge in Wales, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do? He says, with the smack of firm government, that he intends to keep the system under review. Is that the basis for legislating? This is the United Kingdom Parliament whose Members are expected to report to their constituents on the laws that they have passed even when they do not agree with them. In this case, we do not know what has been passed or how the new system will work in Wales, because the Secretary of State does not know. It all depends on how many new inspectors emerge.
        If new league tables emerge in Wales, they will inevitably be used as they have been used in America, where they have become part of the marketing system for schools. Schools will set easy tests so that they can say that most of their kids have passed them, and the next generation of parents will want to send their children to those schools. That is what happens in America, particularly in the inner cities where there are too many schools because of the white flight to the suburbs. If league tables are used as part of marketing to get more kids on the
        1160
        rolls and schools say that by hook or by crook kids will pass the exams, they will need sweetheart inspectors to approve of what they are doing.
        We shall produce an education system with an inherent temptation to corruption and the propensity to conclude sweetheart deals with inspectors. That will be followed by the marketing of bent examination results, which already happens in the private education system, to make it attractive to parents who want to get their children through examinations by hook or by crook.
        Mr. McFall: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who came in with a tea towel for an apron, reminded me of a report that I had read. I want to refer to a couple of damning comments arising from a comparison with American education. In an article in The Independent, inspectors are reported as having said:
        "School principals said, on a number of occasions, that they would rather have good publicity than extra funding."
        It is the marketing, the glitz, that matters. In this regard, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East showed us what he means. Education will take second place.
        Mr. Thurnham: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be left with the impression that the school to which I referred has anything but the very highest standards. My message was that that point had to be conveyed to the parents of pupils and potential pupils. The school has very high standards.
        9 pm
        Mr. McFall: I do not impugn the integrity of that school or the qualifications of its staff. What I am concerned about is the trend that the Bill will encourage. We do not want gimmicks such as are employed in America. The issue is one of statistics. The parents charter requires schools to publish statistics—for example, annual statistics on truancy—but statistics can be produced in an inaccurate and misleading way. That is why we are concerned. The provision that we are putting forward seeks to audit the accuracy of the schools' records and to permit comment, even when the records are accurate, on whether a school may be manipulating the figures. For instance, existing requirements to publish information are thought to be widely abused by means of practices such as the exclusion of pupils from examinations unless they are confidently expected to pass.
        New clause 7 refers to proper practices. The term "proper practices" is borrowed from section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which prescribes the functions of the Audit Commission. It is standard wording, which applies to other areas of local government and to the duties of the Audit Commission. We ask the Government to take this point into consideration.
        The Bill provides no mechanism for checking the accuracy of school-produced data. As has been said, schools can produce misleading data—data transmitted to the Department of Education and Science but, in the interim, corrected by local education officers. For the purpose of correcting such information, we submitted in Committee information in respect of which the Minister said that section 68 of the Education Act 1944 could he used to sort out errors. I suggest that that is plain silly. Section 68 provides the ultimate sanction—reference of governors to the Secretary of State. We are not looking for something like section 68 of the 1944 Act. In this case, that

        1161
        Would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. All we want is accurately audited reports, just as one expects in respect of financial matters.
        The point about specifically audited reports and information is very important. The Government intend that information published by each school should be straightforward, factual and easily obtainable. This is referred to as raw data. However, at no time in the current debate has "raw data" been defined. If the Secretary of State persists with this, it will end up as a raw deal for schools and pupils.
        Having looked through the literature on education, I should like to quote from Education magazine of September 1991. In an article, Gerald Smith, who is head of St. Peter's independent school, Northampton, asks:
        "How, on a raw score league table, would you measure the achievement of one of the Chinese boys at our school, admitted from Hong Kong 18 months ago at the age of 14, unable to speak a word of English, who passed GCE art at grade A, mathematics and drama at grade C and who is now aiming, his confidence growing on success, to take five more next year?"
        Gerald Smith goes on:
        "On a league table this would appear as only three at grade C and above, yet this is as great an achievement as that of another boy who gained 10 GCSEs at grades A and B and four A-levels in chemistry, physics, biology and history, gaining him admittance to medical school. Both boys worked to their full capacity."
        But the league tables do not show that both worked to their full capacity.
        I have evidence from my region of Strathclyde, whose authority has undertaken a close examination of league tables. That authority says that the most potent factor affecting school performance is the intake of the school. This has been referred to by educationists as the "value added factor". It is very important that that factor be recognised.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred to Matthew Arnold. Perhaps we should reflect on what Matthew Arnold said. When he was inspecting schools, he would have concluded that one of the most harmful aspects of these proposals is that they could give rise to the emergence of a league table of schools based on assessment results, and that this could result in teachers developing a "teach the test" mentality. One American teacher I spoke to said that the test result followed the teacher like an albatross. More than 100 years ago Matthew Arnold, in his capacity as a schools inspector, described this phenomenon as
        "a game of contrivance in which it is found possible by ingenious preparation to get children through the examination in reading, writing and ciphering without their knowing how to read, write and cipher."
        While not questioning the integrity of the teaching profession, I must say that pressure will undoubtedly be put on teachers to adopt a narrower focus. League tables may improve test results, but they will be a backward step as regards the education of children. That is why new clause 7 is so important.
        Mr. Fallon: It is a truism to say that we have had a wide-ranging debate, but we have ranged through the Principality of Wales, the kingdom of Scotland, the republic of Bermondsey perhaps, and certainly the local authority of Bolton.
        1162
        I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who concentrated on new clause 7, which provides yet more evidence of the Opposition's schizophrenia to which I referred. On the one hand, they urge that the chief inspector should be independent of the Secretary of State, as was urged in the former debate. On the other, in the new clause, they want to turn the chief inspector into an agent of the Department of Education and Science.
        The regulations to be made under clause 16 will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and it will be for his Department to ensure that they are satisfactorily complied with, as it does now for similar regulations under the Education Act 1980 and the Education Reform Act 1988. The means whereby the information received and published is to be checked and monitored is primarily a matter for statisticians and administrators to consider. We have no intention of using Her Majesty's inspectorate or the school inspection teams as a statistical enforcement agency in that respect, and I am surprised that it should be suggested.
        If hon. Members are concerned lest the monitoring will not be strict enough, I can reassure them that we are determined that it will be. We have already considerable experience is arranging for the collection and publication of examination results in a format best designed to ensure that those of all schools are presented in a fair and comparable way. We shall be similarly scrupulous in dealing with school leavers' destination figures, truancy rates and, in due course, national curriculum assessement results.
        One of the main purposes of the consultation exercise, which we are currently conducting on the arrangements for 1992, is to establish the fairest way of presenting the information school by school. We shall be consulting again—taking account of the experience this year—before bringing in regulations under this legislation in 1993.
        Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister realise how the publication of league tables will work practically? Let me give him an example. In my constituency, there is a school with a serious truancy problem. It has decided to produce attendance sheets for every period because that will enable it to prevent people from wandering about the school and out of school. The truancy rates will give the school a high truancy figure, because the records will show not just who is there at 9 o'clock in the morning and 1 o'clock in the afternoon, but at other times.
        The hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues have complimented the school on its initiative, but in a league table sense it would be cooking its own goose and putting itself at the bottom of the league by detecting additional truancy not detected by other schools which did not bother to keep similar records. If everything is covered by league table, that will kill any incentive to get to grips with serious truancy problems.
        Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that finding other ways of identifying truancy makes it more difficult rather than less difficult to eradicate. I do not accept that. Of course there is a phenomenon known as post-registration truancy, whereby those registered at the start of the day may not be there at the end of the day. A school which adopts the policy described by the hon. Gentleman would be well placed to produce better figures.

        1163
        The school's policy would show that it was tackling truancy seriously. I hope that pupils in that school would respond favourably.
        Mr. McFall: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is trying to get a definition of truancy. What does truancy mean? Let us assume that, in a day with eight periods, a kid is absent for the middle of the day but was there in the morning and is back in the afternoon: is that truancy? It might be truancy in one school but not in another. The compilation of the figures will be important. If there is no definition of truancy and no standardisation, that will lead to inaccurate comparisons between schools. That is the important point. We want the Minister to turn his attention to standardisation.
        Mr. Fallon: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have indeed turned my attention to that. Just last year we reviewed the truancy regulations. They needed considerable updating. The main regulations dated from the 1950s. We have defined truancy much more strictly to show us who is absent on an unauthorised basis. To put it broadly, we have defined truancy as unauthorised absence. We have standardised the way in which unauthorised absence is to be recorded. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen the regulations or the guidance that went with them, I will be happy to send him a copy.
        If Opposition Members wish to ensure that registered inspectors take full account of the performance information for each school which will be specified under clause 16, they need have no fears. HMI now has regard to such information in conducting school inspections, and I expect that HMCI's guidance will make reference to the need for inspection teams to do so.
        It hardly needs to be said that if inspectors find evidence that a school is not meeting its statutory duty under clause 16, they can be expected to draw attention to that evidence in their report. HMCI will be able to notify the Secretary of State. But that will apply to all possible breaches of the law that might be uncovered, and I see no point in limiting such a duty to clause 16.
        I now turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I begin by apologising to the House for the absence of my ministerial colleagues from the Welsh Office. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will recall, they were present yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, sat patiently here waiting for the scheduled debate. If it had not been for the disgraceful antics of the Opposition, which led to the postponement of that debate, my right hon. Friend would have been here to respond to the points that have been raised.
        I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Torfaen raised the points that he did on new clause 7. He had some rapid footwork to do. First, he had the nerve to go on about our failure to recognise the distinctive features of the education system in Wales.
        Mr. Straw: That is absolutely right.
        Mr. Fallon: The hon. Member for Blackburn rather unwisely says that that is absolutely right. Perhaps I could refer him to his document "Raising the Standard". It did not include any reference to the proposal for an education standards commission in Wales which the Labour party
        1164
        has now rushed out. Perhaps he could explain to the House how Wales was forgotten for a few months until these new clauses were drafted.
        The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): The Opposition take Wales for granted.
        Mr. Fallon: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Opposition take Wales for granted. The Government have recognised the distinctive features of the education system in Wales by creating a separate office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for Wales. Our announcement of the conclusion of our review of HMI yesterday again confirmed that the Conservative party has the true interests of Wales at heart.
        As for the proposed educational standards commission, need not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said with regard to England about the imposition of an additional bureaucratic tier between HMI and the Secretary of State. HMI has enjoyed a great deal of independence, and we propose to give it more, not less, under the provisions of the Bill.
        The hon. Member for Torfaen began by referring to criticism of the Government's proposals in Wales. I took a careful note of his words. He said that all those who knew anything about education in the Principality were opposed to the Government's proposals. He conveniently forgot the welcome given to the proposals by, among others, the Welsh Secondary Schools Association. I quote from the Western Mail for 8 January.
        "The shake-up of the school inspection system proposed by the Government was welcomed yesterday by the Welsh Secondary Schools Association.
        The plans…could herald a new, more productive era in schools, the WSSA said."
        The WSSA is quoted as saying.
        "Parents are not gullible people. They know the strengths and weaknesses of a school and the inspection reports could be used to give a school direction."
        9.15 pm
        The Opposition really insult the integrity of school governors and the intelligence of parents by their suggestion of soft options. Our proposals are clearly set out in the Bill, and they will increase the frequency of inspections and reports to give parents and governors the information they need. They will do that in Wales, just as they do it in England.
        The hon. Member made a point about the numbers in the Welsh inspectorate. The number of HMIs has varied in the past, and I have no doubt that it will vary in the future. There are 58 in post at present. Hon. Members will know that the structure in Wales is different from and on a much smaller scale than that in England. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
        It is important that HMCI for Wales should have the staff that he needs to fulfil the function and responsibilities given to him under the Bill. It would be quite wrong to restrain HMCI for Wales's flexibility in this respect by stipulating numbers in primary legislation, as Opposition Members attempt to do in amendment No. 58, which, if we are fortunate, we may reach a little later.
        My right hon. Friend's announcement yesterday of the outcome of our review of HMI in Wales, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), said that, in due course, we expect to see an overall reduction in the numbers of HMI engaged

        1165
        in work relating to schools. I do not intend to be drawn at this stage on precise numbers or on precise timing. I must emphasise that, even if any reduction in HMI numbers takes place, that should not be taken as any threat to HMCI's power or influence, which depends not on the number of people that he employs but rather on the new, independent framework that is being set up under the Bill.
        I repeat that the independence of HMCI and his inspectorate has been strengthened under the Bill. The office of HMCI for Wales will be a new and separate Department of State, with clear statutory powers and duties. It is in our interest to ensure that HMIs are fully staffed to oversee the new system of regular inspections and to offer advice and assistance to my right hon. Friend. There is a new task for HMIs in the establishment and administration of the new scheme for registration and training of inspectors, whether from local authorities or from the private sector. The new inspectors will then undertake the regular inspection of schools proposed in the Bill.
        Until such time as the new arrangements take effect, HMIs will continue their programme of inspection of schools. The registration and training of new inspectors will need to take account of aspects of the education scene in Wales which are different—notably, Welsh medium education and the teaching of the Welsh language, history and culture. We therefore need to give careful consideration to the question of numbers, and we intend to keep the situation under review in the light of these factors and the introduction of the new inspection arrangements. I am sure that HMCI will be as anxious as we are to ensure that HMIs in Wales will be sufficient in number to discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively and efficiently.
        Mr. Morgan: Can the hon. Gentleman define for the benefit of the House and the people of Wales what the phrase
        "able to work in Wales"
        means with respect to the definition given in the parliamentary reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) yesterday? Does it mean that inspectors from outside Wales will not be regarded as qualified? They are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Wales. What meaning are we expected to draw from that phrase?
        Mr. Fallon: It will be for HMCI for Wales to determine the arrangements for those whom he will be registering as inspectors for Wales. He must decide whether they are fit and proper persons, properly trained and therefore able to work in Wales. That is a matter for him to determine. I would not want to debar an inspector from England who chose to move to Wales to inspect Welsh schools, provided that he satisfies the criteria in the guidelines laid down by the separate HMCI for Wales—that is the important safeguard.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) offered to present a tea towel to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who authorised me to thank him for that offer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned advice. From the sum of money spent on inspection and advice by local education authorities, we are taking only half—roughly that sum spent on inspection. We are leaving a large sum of money through which—should they choose to do so and should
        1166
        their schools desire it—they may continue to offer the sort of advisory and support services that they have offered until now.
        The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that he might like a tea towel too.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one.
        Mr. Fallon: He has one—I think that we can judge that by his shirt. He then suggested that we should study clause 16, to strengthen appeal arrangements for city technology colleges. It is a little rich of hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Bench—as they at first opposed the entire concept of CTCs—to come to the House now—
        Mr. Hughes: No.
        Mr. Fallon: Yes. If we look back at the proceedings on the Education Reform Act 1988—
        Mr. Hughes: I oppposed it.
        Mr. Fallon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he opposed the concept of CTCs. He now pops up as an advocate for the disappointed customers of CTCs and seeks to widen their access to them. I hope that that is a recognition—even if it is implicit— that CTCs have worked, have proved successful and are popular in his constituency. I do not think that he could have made that more explicit by the case that he is seeking to make.
        Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Fallon: I am answering the question.
        The hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to consider changing the arrangements only last Tuesday. I hope that he will accept that it is perhaps not as easy for us to change our policies in 48 hours as it is for some other parties. On Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend undertook to consider that matter, and I am happy to consider it further.
        Mr. Hughes: Without entering into the wider argument, may I say that I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Bill may be a means of achieving the end. If that end is to be achieved, it needs to be sooner rather than later because of the timetable of the academic year.
        Mr. Fallon: Fair enough.
        The hon. Member for Cardiff, West who seems to have left us temporarily, raised a number of matters. First, he referred to the Adams report and asked why it was not being published. All those hon. Members who have asked for its publication have correctly described it as an internal review, and it will stay internal.
        The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Cardif, West asked why the parliamentary question had been tabled relatively late in the life of the Bill. Proposals to introduce new inspection arrangements for schools were trailed in the citizens charter published last July, and in "Education: A Charter for Parents in Wales", published last September. Details of our proposals were set out in the Education (Schools) Bill, which was published on 7 November. I do not think that Opposition Members are seriously suggesting that they and the wider public in Wales have been unaware of the proposals, which have been extensively debated and publicised in the past few months.

        1167
        Our proposals for new school inspection arrangements, the creation of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for Wales, and the role of HMI in those arrangements have been clear for a long time. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement was concerned as much with other aspects of the role and structure of HMI—for example, in respect of further education, initial teacher training, and advice and assistance to the Welsh Office education department.
        The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked why we were not making similar changes to the inspectorate in Scotland. I have to inform him, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton could easily have done, that the parents charter for Scotland provides for a number of inspectorate changes in Scotland including the establishment of a audit unit. That is set out helpfully in the parents charter for Scotland document, which I shall ensure is distributed to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and other hon. Members representing Wales who have not seen it.
        I hope that that covers the main points raised in the debate and that I have shown that the new clause is not necessary for the reasons that I have given. I have endeavoured to answer all the questions.
        Question put and negatived.

      New clause 9

        FINANCIAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
        `Sections 1 to 15 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has presented to Parliament a report giving details of the financial arrangements for the payment of registered inspectors and has given his certificate that he is satisfied that both the nature of those arrangements, and the adequacy of the funds available, is such as to ensure the efficient and proper conduct of inspections as provided for under section 9.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take new clause 16—Resources—
        '. It shall be the general duty of the Chief Inspectors for England and Wales to identify the resource needs of the education system and advise their respective Secretaries of State accordingly and each Chief Inspector shall direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to ensure

        (a) that inspection reports on individual schools contain information on the resources made available to each such school, and

        (b) that such information is provided to parents under the terms of section 16 of this Act together with relevant information on the efficient management of financial resources by each such school.'.

        No. 3, in clause 9, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
        '(2A) The duty imposed by subsection (1) or (2) shall not apply unless the Chief Inspector states, in a report laid before Parliament, that he is satisfied that the number of inspectors registered under section 10(1), and the numbers of registered inspectors and members of inspection teams trained under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, are sufficient for the purpose of carrying out the number of inspections prescribed under subsections (1) and (2) of this section.'.
        No. 21, in clause 17, page 11, line 42, after 'children;', insert—
        '(aa) assist parents in assessing the adequacy of the funding provided to schools maintained by their local authorities;'.
        No. 8, in schedule 1, page 16, line 43, at end insert—

        FINANCIAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

          'Estimate of expenses
          (4A). The Chief Inspector shall, before the end of the month of December in each year, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out his estimate of the expenses that will be required, and the numbers of staff, appointed under paragraph 1 above, required, adequately to fulfil his duties under this Act in the next following financial year.'.
          No. 9, in page 17, line 41, at end add—

          'Accounts
          10. (1) It shall be the duty of the Chief Inspector—

          (a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;

          (b) to prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct with the approval of the Treasury; and

          (c) to send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.

          (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him in pursuance of this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.
          Ms. Armstrong: I fear that this will be the last main debate on the Bill, which shows the double standards with which we are dealing this evening. The Government told us that the Bill was being curtailed because of a filibuster, but we have been running to deal with the debate so far and we shall not be able to deal adequately with this discussion in the short time that is left before the guillotine falls.
          New clause 9 deals with what has become known as the West Sussex question, part of which deals with the amount of money available to schools to ensure that they can carry out adequate inspections. Those people who are seeking to make this ludicrous Bill work are seriously worried about whether there will be sufficient finance to ensure even the four-yearly inspections, let alone dealing with the West Sussex question, the issue of more regular inspections or a school needing further inspections within that four-year period. [Interruption.] What will the public think of the behaviour of some Conservative Members when we are talking about the money that will be made available for a privatised inspection service? That money will not be sufficient to guarantee four-yearly inspections and certainly not sufficient to guarantee additional inspections should they be needed.
          We have heard from the National Association of Head Teachers that it feels that it is vital that the proposals of funding for schools to pay for the obligations introduced in the Bill should be discussed at length by the House. The association will be interested to learn that the guillotine motion means that we have less than 35 minutes to debate the issue. The NAHT says that it wants a guarantee in the Bill that there will be funding for schools to enable them to pay both for inspections and for the follow-up processes prescribed by the Bill. The new clause would ensure that sufficient finance was available.
          The Government have given us some idea of what they think the finances will be and of what they have made available for the Bill. They estimated that the cost would be £70 million a year. For schools inspected on a four-yearly cycle, the cost is estimated to be £6,000 for a primary school and £30,000 for a large secondary school.

          1169
          About 5,000 primary schools and 1,000 secondary schools will be inspected each year if all the schools are inspected on a four-yearly cycle.
          There was a leak in The Independent of the report undertaken by HMI on the review of the inspectorate. I regret that that report has not been published, and it is not adequate for the Government continually to say that it is an internal review. They have published no independent information in support of the Bill, although it is only by being provided with such information that we can have a clue about how the Government have arrived at the costings that I outlined.
          9.30 pm
          The leaked report in The Independent on 14 November estimated the cost at £75 million a year and said that it would take probably the equivalent of 30 full-time person days to inspect each primary school and 73½days to inspect each secondary school. It suggested that the going rate, as it were, would be about £250 a day. Some independent consultants who had seen themselves applying to set up teams of inspectors currently ask much more than £250 a day for their services, so many of them have been put off seeing privatised inspections as a new avenue of activity.
          The cost of inspecting a primary school, based on those calculations, would be about £7,500 and not the £6,000 I estimated earlier. The estimated cost for a secondary school would be £18,000. That produces a total cost of £55.5 million for the annual inspection of schools, leaving a gap of £20 million. So we are left guessing to what the missing £20 million would be devoted.
          A person who was thinking of setting up inspection teams wrote an amusing article in Education on 22 November last and went through what the costings would actually mean. He came to the conclusion that no inspection team would make a profit. We are talking of private companies which will have to pay for training and work over and above the work of inspection. The Minister said in Standing Committee that a team member could not expect to be on an inspection team all the time. Hence, the additional expenses for travel, office costs and so on will, I suggest, involve inspection teams in considerable overhead expenses.
          We must remember that the cost of inspection will not comprise simply the cost of the team being in the school. To have a good inspection, time will have to be spent planning and the inspectors engaging in lengthy discussions about their collective experience in the school. Money will be spent on publishing the report and on marketing.
          The firms in question will have to market their wares and publicise their areas of expertise and specialisms. As we know from the cost of Government spending in such areas, it is a rising and high cost. If it is expensive for the Government to advertise their wares, it will not be a cheap option for inspection teams to undertake a similar exercise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has pointed out, they will also be looking for a profit, for all sorts of other reasons.
          The figures that we have been given simply do not add up. They do not suggest that schools will have enough money to carry out full inspections properly every four years. The Secretary of State says that the people of West
          1170
          Sussex should not worry, because the four-yearly inspections will be much more thorough and detailed than the current annual inspections: we have heard a good deal about that today. But the inspections will not be so thorough unless the Secretary of State ensures that enough money is available to pay for them.
          If the information that we have received so far about the costs allocated by the Government is correct, there can be no guarantee that even the four-yearly inspections will be carried out properly. Certainly there is no guarantee that each school will be able to afford the range of people that will need to cover the whole curriculum, especially in the small primary schools.
          In Committee, we spoke of the need for, say, someone with a knowledge of special needs to be involved in every inspection. We were told that it would naturally be deemed important for the whole range of the curriculum to be covered by the inspection team. Yet many small primary schools will be able to afford only the equivalent of a two-member inspection team, which will have to include someone who knows nothing about the subject. How, in those circumstances, will that school be able to afford a proper inspection team? It would probably be able to afford it for no longer than half a day.
          The whole thing is ridiculous. The new clause would enable Her Majesty's chief inspector to say that not enough money was available, and that a report must be brought to Parliament assuring us that it was available. Ultimately, as we debate this squalid Bill, we must try to ensure that there is enough money to secure the efficient and proper conduct of inspections. At present, it is all up to the Secretary of State.
          I wanted to deal with many more points that were made in Committee, but I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. Let me simply say that I hope that the Minister will be serious about ensuring that there are enough funds not only for the four-yearly inspections, but to allow schools to arrange proper inspections in the interim if problems arise. Anything less will inevitably mean a fall in standards; and, inevitably, it will mean that hon. Members cannot be assured that proper and efficient inspection of schools will take place.
          Mr. Anthony coombs: The one thing on which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and most Conservative Members can agree is that we want the Bill to result in improved standards of inspection of our schools. The fact that the hon. Lady does not feel that the Bill will achieve that shows her complete lack of understanding of how it will work in practice. I can understand why she tabled the new clause, but the Bill defines statutorily, for the first time, the duties of the chief inspector. Clause 2(3)(c) says that his duties include:
          "keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under section 9…and, in particular, the standard of such inspections and of the reports made by registered inspectors".
          Clause 4(a) also says that he has a duty to make an annual
          report on that to the Secretary of State, who will lay it before Parliament.
          The more important way in which the Bill will make inspections rigorous, to a high quality and to a standard that can be afforded by schools is through a concept that Labour Members do not appear to understand—the concept of competition. That is the essence of the Bill. Governors have a responsibility to their school. They are given a certain allocation of money. As chairman of the finance committee of a large secondary school in

          1171
          Birmingham, I would make sure that the amount of money that I had to spend on inspections was adequate, and that will happen in schools everywhere. Governors will not be looking at the financial side; they will be making sure that every inspection is comprehensive and rigorous. That is a responsibility for which they will have to answer to the parents of the children in their schools.
          If that were not the case, high-spending authorities would have both higher standards of education—there is no evidence to support that proposition—and the best levels of inspection. My experience of Birmingham, which is not one of the lower spenders, is that its inspection system was not thought to be of a sufficient standard when I was on the education committee eight years ago. The reason for that was not how much money was spent but how it was organised and directed and on what the vast majority of time was spent.
          If inspectors have to spend their time dealing with genderism, multi-culturalism and anti-racism, the authority will not have a comprehensive system of inspection of schools. Such a system is not a properly organised one. On the other hand, my present authority—Hereford and Worcester—which is one of the lower spenders, has a good system which is organised properly.
          The responsibility for inspections will be at school level, and on a competitive basis, the incentive for high standards of inspection at a reasonable cost, within the figures given by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, may well be possible and easily achieved under the Bill.
          Mr. Enright: If those standards of inspection are so magnificent, why are the Government refusing to apply them to the private sector in which many people are being duped?
          Mr. Coombs: The Bill deals with the public sector and the taxpayer's responsibility to the public, through the local education authority and governing bodies, to ensure high standards. Secondly, when someone sends his child to a private school, he makes a choice, exercised through his cash, or his own free will, and is entitled to take his child away if he feels that standards are not high enough. In the many cases where people do not have that choice, the Bill, which, for the first time, gives parents the information that they need to make choices, gives the Government the opportunity to ensure that schools are acting to an adequate standard.
          If the Opposition understood the benefits of a competitive environment and the fact that local management of schools has already led to significantly increased resources for schools because local governing bodies know how to use them better than does a relatively remote local education authority, they would better understand the rationale behind the Bill and how it will provide better systems of education and inspection and, therefore, higher standards.
          9.45 pm
          Mr. Flannery: It saddens me to hear that an honourable person such as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) believes in such nonsense—because that is what it is. It is unworkable.
          I shall deal with the question of resources, which has hardly been mentioned. Clause 16 has the heading "Information about schools" and its title is "Power of
          1172
          Secretary of State to require information". On the question of information about schools, the Secretary of State can ask for all kinds of things, many of them reasonable, but the resources that schools need to carry out the plans are not mentioned at all.
          Although tiny, the Bill will be to education what the poll tax was to taxation. It could linger but—God forbid—not for as long. It is as unworkable as the poll tax. We all remember that the right hon. Lady who used to lead the Conservative party boasted that the poll tax was the flagship. That flagship sunk, but not without trace. It will continue for another year at further expense, and we wonder what will happen.
          It is no wonder that the Government do not mention resources, because resources are being handed out at such a petty level that every aspect of our lives is in confusion. Chaos prevails everywhere. In the education service the morale of our teaching force is at its lowest ebb. Many of us who are familiar with it can see that clearly, and everyone accepts that something must be done.
          When we saw all the amendments that had been tabled in Committee we knew in advance what would happen. There were literally hundreds of amendments and the study of them was in itself a life study. One always knows when the Government are in grave difficulties with their plans. First, they rush them through at a pace which is wholly unacceptable, even to them. Because they rush them through—as they did with the Education Reform Act 1988—they amend them to such an extent that Bills emerge at twice their original length. The Government are so uncertain about the Bill that they constantly tabled amendments. Even tonight, no fewer than 34 amendments have been tabled by Conservative Members, never mind our amendments. Only their amendments would have been accepted if they had been debated. None of our amendments have been accepted.
          The Minister of State looks surprised. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would reach an agreement—we had to agree—saying, "If you leave this and don't vote on it, we shall attend to it on Report." Of course, we get nothing on Report, no matter what concessions we made. If the Minister does not agree, let him denounce what I have said and tell us how many amendments were accepted and how many he would have accepted tonight. In the meantime, resources, which are regularly overlooked, are not mentioned. At this stage, the debate on resources is one of the most important.
          Schools are short of money now. They are low in morale, and short of books and equipment. Everywhere the fabric of the buildings is in a state which demands billions of pounds to put things right, yet we are enacting doctrinaire dogma, which says, "If it moves, privatise it; if it doesn't move, still privatise it. Privatise everything." The Government are caught up in their own dogma, so it was inevitable that the marketplace would prevail in education, and we would have all this unworkable nonsense.
          In new clause 16, an important new clause which the Government will not accept, we try to put things right. It tries to remedy the deficiencies in the Bill concerning the money that schools urgently need for the inspections that are supposed to be carried out. Many of us hope that we shall never see those inspections, because the Opposition will become the Government, and we shall get rid of this nasty, squalid little Bill straight away.
          New clause 16 says:

          1173
          " . It shall be the general duty of the Chief Inspectors for England and Wales to identify the resource needs of the education system and advise their respective Secretaries of State accordingly and each Chief Inspector shall direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to ensure

          (a) that inspection reports on individual schools contain information on the resources made available to each school, and

          (b) that such information is provided to parents under the terms of section 16 of this Act together with relevant information on the efficient management of financial resources by each such school."

          The Government will never accept the new clause, because the money they give schools is totally insufficient to run the schools as they are now. Schools are all short of money. Anybody who goes into schools sees that they need paint, equipment and everything else conducive to good education. Yet they cannot get that now. They have to beg for it and pray for it, and it is never forthcoming.
          Yet at the same time, vast amounts of money are being given to the rich. The people in charge of the denationalised industries, such as British Telecom, are handing out hundreds of thousands of pounds to themselves, in the middle of a great recession, and there is no competition, although the Government talk about it. The situation is the same in the water industry, and now it will be the same in education. Money is to be made out of education.
          In Committee the question whether inspection should include reference to the resourcing of education was left open. The Minister of State said:
          "We are talking about whether inspectors should be able to report on how resources affect the quality and standards of education"—
          as though resources did not affect the quality and standard of education. In order to rebuff us and justify doing nothing about the issue, he continued:
          "the quality and standards of education that are delivered either nationally or in schools. We believe that there is nothing in the Bill's drafting to prevent them from doing that."
          We replied, "All right then, put it in the Bill. Why can we not have it in the record that resources should play a role, that the inspectorate should tell the chief inspector nationally what money schools have available and, if they were to carry out inspections, how much more they would need?" We did not get that into the Bill. The Minister said that of course the Government would do that. Nonsense. Of course they will not.
          The Minister continued:
          "Indeed, I shall go further and say that we would anticipate that both nationally and locally they would do that if they felt that it was a germane factor."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 3 December 1991; c. 122.]
          He was wondering whether resources in schools and the need for money and equipment were a germane factor. Who does he think he is talking to? I cannot imagine a situation in which resourcing was not a germane factor. However, I can imagine what a vastly reduced HMI might do. The inspectorate will be reduced to a pitiful number, and the inspectors will not be independent. They will be tied to the Minister, and the Minister knows that.
          I envisage the possibility that a vastly reduced HMI or new privatised inspection team will not always provide such information unless it is required of them. The chief inspectors should have particular regard to policies on resourcing and appraisal and should maintain the widely accepted need for the inspection service to retain the
          1174
          integrity of independence. That deeply worries us, because all the signs are of a semi-dictatorial approach to the inspectorate, curbing the inspectors and bringing in people who are totally unqualified.
          For instance, the Bill says that at least one member of a team should have no knowledge of education, in the sense of having had contact with it as a governor or in a similar role. There is no evidence to say that only one member of a team should have no educational knowledge, and the Bill gives the impression that there will be more than one such team member. Such a person could, for example, be a butcher. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) pointed out, in a jocular bit of repartee, that the schools will canvass the teams, and cheaper teams will be offered. Those teams will be compliant to the schools and will give a good report in order to get the job next time. The marketplace will then have entered the classroom. If that is the achievement in education that the Conservative party seeks, it is welcome to it.
          The Bill is an attack on our schools, not on the schools to which Conservative Members' children go. Even the so-called great Education Reform Act 1988 applies not to their schools but only to ours. Neither does the national curriculum apply to their schools. We shall make the national curriculum apply to their schools and shall have their schools properly inspected by our inspectors.
          The Government conceded to the inclusion in the publication of schools' information of a reference to managing finances efficiently. The Minister of State said in Committee:
          "There is a case for at least giving the Secretary of State the power to require schools to publish what I should call financial efficiency data at some stage in the future. We have no immediate plans to do so, but it makes eminent sense to have that power on the statute book."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 January 1992; c. 434.]
          We have asked the Minister to put that in this squalid little Bill. But the Bill must go to the House of Lords, and I shall be staggered if it passes through there without much discussion. In Committee, the Minister of State said that he would "expect and want" inspectors to report on how the available resources affect both quality and standards in schools, locally and nationally. He added that Her Majesty's chief inspector's annual report already deals with resources. He argued against specific wording in the Bill, saying that many other issues to be considered by inspectors would have to be added to the Bill. There are 34 more in the Bill and the Minister says that the Government would have to add more.
          The Government were in such a mess with the Education Reform Bill that it emerged approximately twice as big as it started, as a result of long amendments not from the Opposition but from the Government. They are in the same mess in this run-up to the general election which they are about to lose.
          The new clause deals with the Minister's concerns by ensuring that the information is included in every inspection report. We want the resources—or lack of resources—to be shown in every report so that people and parents know how little money the Government are providing. They do not want that information in the Bill because they know that they are under-resourcing education. Under the Bill, they will continue to under-resource education, so they do not want to touch on the question of resources.

          1175
          The new clause will ensure that the information is included, thereby providing a ready source of information for HMI to use, without having to investigate many issues at once. We have no faith in the belief that that inspectorate will be in a position to do a proper job. It is liable to be ill-qualified. It is liable to be, as state education is for our children, on the cheap all the time.
          In conclusion, because it is nearly time for the guillotine to fall—although I am more than willing to keep going, as I have a lot to say yet—the new clause goes further in establishing the rights of parents to know the level of resourcing for each school. With their new-found desire to give parents full knowledge of everything, it should be perfectly obvious to the Tories that, if there is one thing above all that parents would like to know, it is whether their school is under-resourced. If their children's school is half falling down, for instance, the inspector will make it clear. An independent inspectorate will tell the truth, as it has done all these years.
          It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 269.

          Division No. 63]

          [10 pm

          AYES

          Anderson, Donald

          Galloway, George

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Garrett, John (Norwich South)

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          George, Bruce

          Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Gordon, Mildred

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Graham, Thomas

          Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Battle, John

          Grocott, Bruce

          Beckett, Margaret

          Hain, Peter

          Bell, Stuart

          Hardy, Peter

          Bellotti, David

          Harman, Ms Harriet

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Haynes, Frank

          Benton, Joseph

          Heal, Mrs Sylvia

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Hinchliffe, David

          Bidwell, Sydney

          Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

          Boateng, Paul

          Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

          Boyes, Roland

          Home Robertson, John

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

          Hoyle, Doug

          Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Campbell-Savours, D. N.

          Ingram, Adam

          Cartwright, John

          Johnston, Sir Russell

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

          Cook, Robin (Livingston)

          Kilfoyle, Peter

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

          Couchman, James

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Cox, Tom

          Lamond, James

          Crowther, Stan

          Leighton, Ron

          Cryer, Bob

          Litherland, Robert

          Cummings, John

          Livsey, Richard

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Cunningham, Dr John

          McCrea, Rev William

          Darling, Alistair

          Macdonald, Calum A.

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

          McFall, John

          Dewar, Donald

          McLeish, Henry

          Dixon, Don

          McMaster, Gordon

          Dunnachie, Jimmy

          McNamara, Kevin

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

          Madden, Max

          Eastham, Ken

          Maginnis, Ken

          Enright, Derek

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Fatchett, Derek

          Martlew, Eric

          Flannery, Martin

          Meacher, Michael

          Flynn, Paul

          Meale, Alan

          Foster, Derek

          Michael, Alun

          Foulkes, George

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

          Fraser, John

          Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

          Fyfe, Maria

          Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

          1176

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

          Morgan, Rhodri

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

          Morley, Elliot

          Snape, Peter

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Soley, Clive

          Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

          Spearing, Nigel

          Mowlam, Marjorie

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Mullin, Chris

          Straw, Jack

          Murphy, Paul

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Nellist, Dave

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          O'Brien, William

          Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

          O'Hara, Edward

          Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Turner, Dennis

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Wareing, Robert N.

          Quin, Ms Joyce

          Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

          Redmond, Martin

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Robertson, George

          Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

          Robinson, Geoffrey

          Winnick, David

          Rooney, Terence

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Short, Clare

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Skinner, Dennis

          Mr. Allen McKay and

          Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

          Mr. Eric Illsley.

          NOES

          Adley, Robert

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Aitken, Jonathan

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Alexander, Richard

          Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Couchman, James

          Allason, Rupert

          Cran, James

          Amery, Rt Hon Julian

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Amess, David

          Davis, David (Boothferry)

          Amos, Alan

          Devlin, Tim

          Arbuthnot, James

          Dicks, Terry

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Arnold, Sir Thomas

          Dover, Den

          Ashby, David

          Durant, Sir Anthony

          Aspinwall, Jack

          Dykes, Hugh

          Atkinson, David

          Eggar, Tim

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Baldry, Tony

          Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

          Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

          Fallon, Michael

          Batiste, Spencer

          Farr, Sir John

          Bendall, Vivian

          Favell, Tony

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Benyon, W.

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Bevan, David Gilroy

          Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

          Blackburn, Dr John G.

          Fishburn, John Dudley

          Body, Sir Richard

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Forth, Eric

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Boswell, Tim

          Freeman, Roger

          Bottomley, Peter

          French, Douglas

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

          Fry, Peter

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Gale, Roger

          Bowis, John

          Gardiner, Sir George

          Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

          Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

          Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

          Gill, Christopher

          Brazier, Julian

          Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

          Bright, Graham

          Goodhart, Sir Philip

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

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

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

          Browne, John (Winchester)

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Buck, Sir Antony

          Gorst, John

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

          Burns, Simon

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          Burt, Alistair

          Gregory, Conal

          Butler, Chris

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Butterfill, John

          Grist, Ian

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Ground, Patrick

          Carrington, Matthew

          Hague, William

          Cash, William

          Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

          Channon, Rt Hon Paul

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Chapman, Sydney

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          Chope, Christopher

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Churchill, Mr

          Hannam, Sir John

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

          Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

          Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Harris, David

          Colvin, Michael

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Conway, Derek

          Hawkins, Christopher

          1177

          Hayes, Jerry

          Patten, Rt Hon John

          Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

          Pawsey, James

          Hayward, Robert

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Porter, David (Waveney)

          Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

          Portillo, Michael

          Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

          Price, Sir David

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Raffan, Keith

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

          Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Rathbone, Tim

          Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Redwood, John

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Rhodes James, Sir Robert

          Hunt, Rt Hon David

          Riddick, Graham

          Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

          Irvine, Michael

          Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

          Jack, Michael

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Jackson, Robert

          Rossi, Sir Hugh

          Janman, Tim

          Rost, Peter

          Jessel, Toby

          Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

          Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

          Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

          Key, Robert

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Kilfedder, James

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

          Shelton, Sir William

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

          Knapman, Roger

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Sims, Roger

          Knox, David

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Latham, Michael

          Soames, Hon Nicholas

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Speller, Tony

          Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

          Squire, Robin

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Steen, Anthony

          Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

          Stern, Michael

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Stevens, Lewis

          Lord, Michael

          Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

          Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          Macfarlane, Sir Neil

          Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Sumberg, David

          MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

          Tapsell, Sir Peter

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Madel, David

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Malins, Humfrey

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

          Mans, Keith

          Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

          Maples, John

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Marlow, Tony

          Thorne, Neil

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Thurnham, Peter

          Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

          Maude, Hon Francis

          Tracey, Richard

          Mawhinney, Dr Brian

          Tredinnick, David

          Mellor, Rt Hon David

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Miller, Sir Hal

          Viggers, Peter

          Mills, Iain

          Wakeham, Rt Hon John

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

          Mitchell, Sir David

          Walden, George

          Moate, Roger

          Walker, Bill (T'side North)

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Waller, Gary

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Walters, Sir Dennis

          Morris, M (N'hampton S)

          Ward, John

          Morrison, Sir Charles

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Warren, Kenneth

          Moss, Malcolm

          Watts, John

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Wells, Bowen

          Neale, Sir Gerrard

          Wheeler, Sir John

          Nelson, Anthony

          Whitney, Ray

          Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Norris, Steve

          Wiggin, Jerry

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Wilkinson, John

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Wilshire, David

          Page, Richard

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Paice, James

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Patnick, Irvine

          Wolfson, Mark

          Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

          Wood, Timothy

          1178

          Woodcock, Dr. Mike

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Yeo, Tim

          Mr. David Lightbown and

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Mr. John M. Taylor.

          Question accordingly negatived.
          MR. SPEAKER then, pursuant to the Order, put the Question, That all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill:—
          The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 134.

          Division No. 64]

          [10.15 pm

          AYES

          Adley, Robert

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Aitken, Jonathan

          Dover, Den

          Alexander, Richard

          Durant, Sir Anthony

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Dykes, Hugh

          Allason, Rupert

          Eggar, Tim

          Amery, Rt Hon Julian

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Amess, David

          Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

          Amos, Alan

          Fallon, Michael

          Arbuthnot, James

          Farr, Sir John

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Favell, Tony

          Arnold, Sir Thomas

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Ashby, David

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Aspinwall, Jack

          Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

          Atkinson, David

          Fishburn, John Dudley

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Baldry, Tony

          Forth, Eric

          Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Batiste, Spencer

          Freeman, Roger

          Bendall, Vivian

          French, Douglas

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Fry, Peter

          Benyon, W.

          Gale, Roger

          Bevan, David Gilroy

          Gardiner, Sir George

          Blackburn, Dr John G.

          Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

          Body, Sir Richard

          Gill, Christopher

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Goodhart, Sir Philip

          Boswell, Tim

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

          Bottomley, Peter

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Gorst, John

          Bowis, John

          Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

          Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

          Gregory, Conal

          Brazier, Julian

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Bright, Graham

          Grist, Ian

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Ground, Patrick

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

          Hague, William

          Browne, John (Winchester)

          Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

          Buck, Sir Antony

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          Burns, Simon

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Burt, Alistair

          Hannam, Sir John

          Butler, Chris

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

          Butterfill, John

          Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Harris, David

          Carrington, Matthew

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Cash, William

          Hawkins, Christopher

          Channon, Rt Hon Paul

          Hayes, Jerry

          Chapman, Sydney

          Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

          Chope, Christopher

          Hayward, Robert

          Churchill, Mr

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

          Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

          Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

          Colvin, Michael

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Conway, Derek

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

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Couchman, James

          Hunt, Rt Hon David

          Cran, James

          Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Hunter, Andrew

          Davis, David (Boothferry)

          Irvine, Michael

          Devlin, Tim

          Jack, Michael

          Dicks, Terry

          Jackson, Robert

          1179

          Janman, Tim

          Riddick, Graham

          Jessel, Toby

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

          Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Key, Robert

          Rossi, Sir Hugh

          Kilfedder, James

          Rost, Peter

          King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

          Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

          King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

          Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

          Knapman, Roger

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Knox, David

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Shelton, Sir William

          Latham, Michael

          Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

          Sims, Roger

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Soames, Hon Nicholas

          Lord, Michael

          Speller, Tony

          Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

          Squire, Robin

          Macfarlane, Sir Neil

          Steen, Anthony

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Stern, Michael

          MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

          Stevens, Lewis

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

          McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          Madel, David

          Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

          Malins, Humfrey

          Sumberg, David

          Mans, Keith

          Tapsell, Sir Peter

          Maples, John

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Marlow, Tony

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

          Maude, Hon Francis

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Mawhinney, Dr Brian

          Thorne, Neil

          Mellor, Rt Hon David

          Thurnham, Peter

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Miller, Sir Hal

          Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

          Mills, Iain

          Tracey, Richard

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Tredinnick, David

          Mitchell, Sir David

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Moate, Roger

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Viggers, Peter

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Wakeham, Rt Hon John

          Morris, M (N'hampton S)

          Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

          Morrison, Sir Charles

          Walden, George

          Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Walker, Bill (T'side North)

          Moss, Malcolm

          Waller, Gary

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Walters, Sir Dennis

          Neale, Sir Gerrard

          Ward, John

          Nelson, Anthony

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

          Warren, Kenneth

          Norris, Steve

          Wells, Bowen

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Wheeler, Sir John

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Whitney, Ray

          Page, Richard

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Paice, James

          Wiggin, Jerry

          Patnick, Irvine

          Wilkinson, John

          Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

          Wilshire, David

          Patten, Rt Hon John

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Pawsey, James

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Wolfson, Mark

          Porter, David (Waveney)

          Wood, Timothy

          Portillo, Michael

          Woodcock, Dr. Mike

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Yeo, Tim

          Price, Sir David

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Raffan, Keith

          Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Rathbone, Tim

          Mr. David Lightbown and

          Redwood, John

          Mr. John M. Taylor.

          Rhodes James, Sir Robert

          NOES

          Anderson, Donald

          Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Battle, John

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Beckett, Margaret

          Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

          Bellotti, David

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Benton, Joseph

          1180

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Livsey, Richard

          Bidwell, Sydney

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Boateng, Paul

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Boyes, Roland

          McCrea, Rev William

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Macdonald, Calum A.

          Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

          McFall, John

          Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

          McLeish, Henry

          Campbell-Savours, D. N.

          McMaster, Gordon

          Cartwright, John

          McNamara, Kevin

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Madden, Max

          Cook, Robin (Livingston)

          Maginnis, Ken

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Cousins, Jim

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Cox, Tom

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Crowther, Stan

          Martlew, Eric

          Cryer, Bob

          Meacher, Michael

          Cummings, John

          Meale, Alan

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Michael, Alun

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

          Darling, Alistair

          Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

          Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

          Dewar, Donald

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Dixon, Don

          Morgan, Rhodri

          Dunnachie, Jimmy

          Morley, Elliot

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Eastham, Ken

          Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

          Enright, Derek

          Mowlam, Marjorie

          Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

          Mullin, Chris

          Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

          Murphy, Paul

          Fatchett, Derek

          Nellist, Dave

          Flannery, Martin

          O'Brien, William

          Flynn, Paul

          O'Hara, Edward

          Foster, Derek

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Foulkes, George

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Fraser, John

          Redmond, Martin

          Fyfe, Maria

          Robertson, George

          Galloway, George

          Robinson, Geoffrey

          Garrett, John (Norwich South)

          Rooney, Terence

          George, Bruce

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Short, Clare

          Gordon, Mildred

          Skinner, Dennis

          Graham, Thomas

          Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

          Grocott, Bruce

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

          Hain, Peter

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

          Hardy, Peter

          Snape, Peter

          Harman, Ms Harriet

          Soley, Clive

          Haynes, Frank

          Spearing, Nigel

          Heal, Mrs Sylvia

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Hinchliffe, David

          Straw, Jack

          Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Home Robertson, John

          Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

          Hoyle, Doug

          Vaz, Keith

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Wareing, Robert N.

          Ingram, Adam

          Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Kilfoyle, Peter

          Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

          Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Lamond, James

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Leighton, Ron

          Mr. Allen McKay and

          Litherland, Robert

          Mr. Eric Illsley.

          Question accordingly agreed to.

      Clause 9

        INSPECTION OF CERTAIN SCHOOLS
        Amendments made: No. 22, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—
        '( ) maintained nursery schools.'.
        No. 23, in page 5, leave out line 32.
        No. 24, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—
        '( ) Regulations under this section may, in particular—

        (a) make provision as to the period within which the first inspection of a school under this section is to begin;

        1181

        (b) make any such provision by reference to the time when funds for the first inspection are made available to the school; and

        (c) provide for intervals to be prescribed by reference to times when funds for inspections under this section are made available to schools.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Clause 16

        POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO REQUIRE INFORMATION
        Amendments made: No. 25, in page 10, line 6, leave out second 'of.
        No. 26, in page 10, line 12, leave out 'and'.
        No. 27, in page 10, line 15, at end insert; or
        (c) assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed.'.
        No. 28, in page 11, line 15, at end add—
        '( ) This section does not apply to nursery schools.'.— [Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Clause 17

        INFORMATION AS TO SCHOOLS AND PUPILS: SCOTLAND
        Amendments made: No. 29, in page 11, line 35, leave out second 'of.
        No. 48, in page 11, line 42, leave out 'and'.
        No. 49, in page 11, line 46, at end insert; or
        (c) assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed.'.
        No. 50, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—
        ( ) This section does not apply to nursery schools.'.
        No. 51, in page 13, line 6, leave out 'or' and insert
        'school, an'.
        No. 52, in page 13, line 6, at end insert 'or a nursery school.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Clause 18

        INTERPRETATION
        Amendments made: No. 30, in page 13, line 30, leave out from 'arts"' to 'section' and insert
        'have the meanings given in'.
        No. 31, in page 13, line 38, after first 'school'.
        No. 32, in page 13, line 38, at end insert—
        '"nursery school" has the meaning given in section 9(4) of the Education Act 1944;'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Clauses 20

        EXPENSE
        Amendment made: No. 33, in page 14, line 30, at end insert—
        '( ) There shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund any sums received by the Chief Inspector under section 10(4)(b) or paragraph 4(3), 5(3) or 12(4) of Schedule 2."—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Clause 21

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC
        Amendments made: No. 34, in page 14, line 32, leave out from 'Act' to 'as' in line 33 and insert 'shall be included among the Acts which may be cited'.
        No. 35, in page 15, line I, leave out from '(6)' to 'also' in line 3 and insert
        'Paragraphs 7 to 9 of Schedule 1 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 4'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

      Second Schedule—

        SCHOOL INSPECTIONS
        Amendments made: No. 36, in page 18, line 33, at end insert any connection er—'.
        No. 37, in page 18, leave out line 34 and insert—
        '(a) the school in question,'.
        No. 38, in page 18, line 35, leave out 'any connection with'.
        No. 39, in page 18, line 35, after 'person', insert 'who is'.
        No. 40, in page 18, line 35, at end insert—
        '( ) any person who is a member of the school's governing body, or
        ( ) the proprietor of the school,'.
        No. 41, in page 20, line 10, after 'body', insert '(if any)'.
        No. 42, in page 20, line 12, at end insert—
        '( ) In the case of—

        (a) a voluntary school, or

        (b) a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school immediately before it became a grant-maintained school,

        the registered inspector shall also send a copy of the report and summary to the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.'.
        No. 43, in page 20, line 36, after 'this' insert 'Part of this'.
        No. 44, in page 20, line 46, after 'body', insert '(if any)'.
        No. 45, in page 20, line 48, at end insert—
        '( ) In the case of—

        (a) a voluntary school, or

        (b) a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school immediately before it became a grant-maintained school,

        the appropriate authority shall also send a copy of the action plan to the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.'.
        No. 46, in page 21, line 17, leave out 'school' and insert
        'maintained school which is not a nursery school'.
        No. 47, in page 22, line 38, at end insert—

        SCHOOL INSPECTIONS

          'Additional action plans
          .—(1) The governing body to whom an inspector has reported under this Part of this Schedule shall, before the end of the prescribed period, prepare a written statement ("the additional action plan") of the action which they propose to take in the light of his report and the period within which they propose to take it.
          (2) Where an additional action plan has been prepared by a governing body, they shall, before the end of the prescribed period, send copies of it to the person who appoints the school's foundation governors and—

          (a) in the case of a voluntary school, to the local education authority, or

          (b) in the case of a grant-maintained school, to the Secretary of State,

          and to such other persons (if any), in such circumstances, as may be prescribed.
          (3) The governing body shall—

          (a) make any additional action plan prepared by them available for inspection by members of the public, at such times and at such a place as may be reasonable;

          (b)provide a copy of the plan, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment of the prescribed fee, to any person who asks for one; and

          (c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every parent of a registered pupil at the

          1183
          school for whom the school provides denominational education receives a copy of the plan as soon as is reasonably practicable.

          (4) Where the governing body of a school have prepared an additional action plan, they shall include in their governors' report a statement of the extent to which the proposals set out in the plan have been carried into effect.
          (5) In sub-paragraph (4) "the governors' report" means—

          (a) in the case of a voluntary school, the report referred to in section 30 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986; and

          (b) in the case of a grant-maintained school, the report referred to in section 58(5)(j) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

          (6) Sub-paragraph (4) applies only in relation to the most recent additional action plan for the school in question.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
          MR. SPEAKER then, pursuant to the Order, put the remaining Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
          Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 132.

          Division No. 65]

          [10.22 pm

          AYES

          Adley, Robert

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Aitken, Jonathan

          Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

          Alexander, Richard

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Colvin, Michael

          Allason, Rupert

          Conway, Derek

          Amery, Rt Hon Julian

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Amess, David

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Amos, Alan

          Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

          Arbuthnot, James

          Couchman, James

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Cran, James

          Arnold, Sir Thomas

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Ash by, David

          Davis, David (Boothferry)

          Aspinwall, Jack

          Devlin, Tim

          Atkinson, David

          Dicks, Terry

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Baldry, Tony

          Dover, Den

          Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

          Durant, Sir Anthony

          Batiste, Spencer

          Eggar, Tim

          Bendall, Vivian

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

          Benyon, W.

          Fallon, Michael

          Bevan, David Gilroy

          Farr, Sir John

          Blackburn, Dr John G.

          Favell, Tony

          Body, Sir Richard

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

          Boswell, Tim

          Fishburn, John Dudley

          Bottomley, Peter

          Forth, Eric

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

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Freeman, Roger

          Bowis, John

          French, Douglas

          Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

          Fry, Peter

          Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

          Gale, Roger

          Brazier, Julian

          Gardiner, Sir George

          Bright, Graham

          Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Gill, Christopher

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

          Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

          Browne, John (Winchester)

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

          Buck, Sir Antony

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

          Budgen, Nicholas

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Burns, Simon

          Gorst, John

          Burt, Alistair

          Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

          Butler, Chris

          Green way, Harry (Eating N)

          Butterfill, John

          Gregory, Conal

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Carrington, Matthew

          Grist, Ian

          Cash, William

          Ground, Patrick

          Channon, Rt Hon Paul

          Hague, William

          Chapman, Sydney

          Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

          Chope, Christopher

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Churchill, Mr

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          1184

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Page, Richard

          Hannam, Sir John

          Paice, James

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

          Patnick, Irvine

          Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

          Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

          Harris, David

          Patten, Rt Hon John

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Pawsey, James

          Hawkins, Christopher

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Hayes, Jerry

          Porter, David (Waveney)

          Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

          Portillo, Michael

          Hayward, Robert

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Price, Sir David

          Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

          Raffan, Keith

          Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

          Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

          Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

          Rathbone, Tim

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Redwood, John

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

          Rhodes James, Sir Robert

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Riddick, Graham

          Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

          Hunt, Rt Hon David

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

          Rossi, Sir Hugh

          Hunter, Andrew

          Rost, Peter

          Irvine, Michael

          Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

          Jack, Michael

          Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

          Jackson, Robert

          Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

          Janman, Tim

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Jessel, Toby

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

          Shelton, Sir William

          Key, Robert

          Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

          Kilfedder, James

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

          Sims, Roger

          King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Knapman, Roger

          Soames, Hon Nicholas

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Speller, Tony

          Knox, David

          Squire, Robin

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Steen, Anthony

          Latham, Michael

          Stern, Michael

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Stevens, Lewis

          Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

          Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

          Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Sumberg, David

          Lord, Michael

          Tapsell, Sir Peter

          Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Macfarlane, Sir Neil

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

          McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

          Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

          Madel, David

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Malins, Humfrey

          Thorne, Neil

          Mans, Keith

          Thurnham, Peter

          Maples, John

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Marlow, Tony

          Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Tracey, Richard

          Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

          Tredinnick, David

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Maude, Hon Francis

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Mawhinney, Dr Brian

          Viggers, Peter

          Mellor, Rt Hon David

          Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Walden, George

          Miller, Sir Hal

          Walker, Bill (T'side North)

          Mills, Iain

          Waller, Gary

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Ward, John

          Mitchell, Sir David

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Moate, Roger

          Warren, Kenneth

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Watts, John

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Wells, Bowen

          Morris, M (N'hampton S)

          Wheeler, Sir John

          Morrison, Sir Charles

          Whitney, Ray

          Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Moss, Malcolm

          Wiggin, Jerry

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Wilkinson, John

          Neale, Sir Gerrard

          Wilshire, David

          Nelson, Anthony

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Norris, Steve

          Wolfson, Mark

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Wood, Timothy

          Oppenheim, Phillip

          Woodcock, Dr. Mike

          1185

          Yeo, Tim

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Mr. David Lightbown and

          Mr. John M. Taylor.

          NOES

          Anderson, Donald

          Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Lamond, James

          Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

          Leighton, Ron

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Litherland, Robert

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Livsey, Richard

          Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Battle, John

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Beckett, Margaret

          McCrea, Rev William

          Bellotti, David

          Macdonald, Calum A.

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          McFall, John

          Benton, Joseph

          McLeish, Henry

          Bermingham, Gerald

          McMaster, Gordon

          Bidwell, Sydney

          McNamara, Kevin

          Boateng, Paul

          Madden, Max

          Boyes, Roland

          Maginnis, Ken

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Campbell-Savours, D. N.

          Martlew, Eric

          Cartwright, John

          Meacher, Michael

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Meale, Alan

          Cook, Robin (Livingston)

          Michael, Alun

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

          Cousins, Jim

          Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

          Cox, Tom

          Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

          Crowther, Stan

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Cryer, Bob

          Morgan, Rhodri

          Cummings, John

          Morley, Elliot

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

          Darling, Alistair

          Mowlam, Marjorie

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

          Mullin, Chris

          Dewar, Donald

          Murphy, Paul

          Dixon, Don

          Nellist, Dave

          Dunnachie, Jimmy

          O'Brien, William

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

          O'Hara, Edward

          Eastham, Ken

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Enright, Derek

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

          Redmond, Martin

          Fatchett, Derek

          Robertson, George

          Flannery, Martin

          Robinson, Geoffrey

          Flynn, Paul

          Rooney, Terence

          Foster, Derek

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Foulkes, George

          Short, Clare

          Fraser, John

          Skinner, Dennis

          Fyfe, Maria

          Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

          Galloway, George

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

          Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

          George, Bruce

          Snape, Peter

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Soley, Clive

          Gordon, Mildred

          Spearing, Nigel

          Graham, Thomas

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Grocott, Bruce

          Straw, Jack

          Hain, Peter

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Hardy, Peter

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Harman, Ms Harriet

          Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

          Haynes, Frank

          Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

          Heal, Mrs Sylvia

          Vaz, Keith

          Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

          Wareing, Robert N.

          Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

          Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

          Home Robertson, John

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

          Hoyle, Doug

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Ingram, Adam

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

          Mr. Allen McKay and

          Kilfoyle, Peter

          Mr. Eric Illsley.

          Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    PETITION

      Standing Charges
      10.40 pm
      Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to ask leave to present a petition containing 10,000 names of my constituents. The subject matter of the petition is standing charges, which the pensioners of my area say are a great burden on them. Many of them, especially during the winter period, are terrified of the cost that those charges impose on them. In addition, they find it difficult to accept the need for standing charges when massive increases have been imposed by services such as gas, water and electricity and when, at the same time, huge salary increases have been given to the directors of the companies that provide those services.
      The petition also refers to the issue of free TV licences, of which I am a fervent supporter. Indeed, I find it incredible that at this time, as we head towards a general election, Conservative Members should be calling for a cut of 1p in the pound—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not indulge in that type of party political onslaught when presenting a petition.
      Mr. Meale: I understand, Mr. Speaker.
      Perhaps I might comment that it would cost only 0.3p for every disabled person and pensioner in Britain to be given a free TV licence. The petition reads:
      "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
      The Humble Petition of residents of Mansfield showeth that standing charges for water, gas, electricity and telephones are a great burden on pensioners at a time when the profits of the utility companies are high and the salaries of the top executives have been vastly increased.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will introduce legislation to abolish standing charges for these utilities for all pensioners, and also to introduce free television licences for pensioner households.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
      To lie upon the Table.

    Black Country Spine Road
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
    10.42 pm
    Mr. Peter Snape: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the problems that the proposed black country spine road will cause my constituency of West Bromwich, East and the constituency which is represented with such distinction by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who regrettably, for understandable reasons, cannot be here tonight.
    The original black country spine road proposals were to link junction 1 on the M5 at West Bromwich to junction 10 on the M6 near Wolverhampton and to open up considerable areas of the black country for regeneration. The road, which was to be dual carriageway, with grade-separation at all junctions, passed through the boroughs of Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. Those authorities have, since 1988, been working with the Department of Transport and the Black Country development corporation to design and construct the road.
    The speed with which the design of the scheme progressed to the compulsory purchase order stage was unprecedented and a public inquiry was held in September 1989. Indeed, since then, a dozen or so houses on Billhay street in West Bromwich have already been acquired and stand derelict, although I understand that they will not now be required, given the truncated version of the scheme.
    In May 1990, the Department of Transport embarked on a review of the black country spine road following an escalation of the estimated costs of the original scheme. On 18 July 1991, in a written reply, somewhat surprisingly to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), the Government announced that they could not support the full scheme as proposed. They were willing, they said, to support an at-grade dual carriageway running from Carters green, West Bromwich, to Leabrook road, Wednesbury, at an estimated cost of £93 million. The northern section of the scheme would not be supported.
    I said that I was surprised that the decision has been announced in the form of a written reply to the hon. Member for Yardley. That reply came within a few clays of a letter that I had written to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, asking what progress was being made on the scheme. It is rather sad that the present Government are so partisan that even a road scheme in my constituency, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West can be announced only through the medium of what I regard as a planted question from a Conservative Member. I do not really see the point of subterfuge.
    The current proposals are as follows. The road is now to be built from Carters green, in the West Bromwich, East constituency, to Leabrook road, Wednesbury, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West. As I have said, there are now no proposals to build the northern section through Walsall and Wolverhampton. The road will be built as a dual carriageway with at-grade junctions, at an estimated cost of £93 million. It will not be
    trunked on completion. As far
    1188
    as we know, the project will be managed by the Black Country development corporation, with Sandwell metropolitan borough council as the agent.
    The objectives of the original proposals have not altered from its inception, and were comprehensively addressed in the evidence given to the public inquiry. The present proposals fall far short of the objectives, as I shall attempt to show. The objectives of the original scheme were set out by the Black Country development corporation in 1988, as follows:
    "To promote a high quality dual carriageway through the Black Country as an extension to the national and regional network…To provide access to land for regeneration purposes…To provide overall relief to existing routes and accident blackspots…To create jobs, both directly and indirectly…To reclaim land, both directly and indirectly."
    I have mentioned some of the shortcomings of the current proposals. The strategic nature of the road link, as forming part of the national and regional highway network, will be seriously affected. Traffic relief to existing routes, as originally envisaged, will be considerably diminished. The regeneration role of the new road will not be fully met, because of the more limited junction capacity and the exclusion of the northern half of the scheme.
    The reduced scheme will mean that some of the existing highway network will be used for quicker alternative routes. Particular traffic problems will occur at the A41/A46 junction between Holyhead road and High Bullen, Wednesbury, and the A461 Wood Green road to junction 9 of the M6. Deletion of grade separation at All Saints junction means that that point will be overloaded immediately after the spine road is opened. In a moment, I shall try to show just how overloaded the road is at that point now.
    The development of the Patent Shaft site in Wednesbury, and the reclamation and development of other sites along the route, will be hampered by the reduced scheme, which will obviously be much less attractive to developers. The exclusion of the route to the north will have a similar damaging impact on job creation.
    The Government continually lecture us about the need to save money. Any proposals from the Opposition are greeted with the parrot cry, "Where will the money come from?" It is interesting to note that this aborted scheme has already cost about £15 million—according to the local authority estimates—and there are further costs of house acquisition and so forth still to be calculated.
    When the original proposals were first published, I campaigned on behalf of my constituents for proper grade separation at the two junctions in my constituency—one at the expressway with All Saints way, and also at the end of the expressway at Carters green in the centre of West Bromwich. As for the first junction, there is already a considerable problem with traffic tailback at the expressway, particularly in the evening rush hour. The extra traffic that will be generated by the new road proposals will not only cause chaos at this point; it will mean considerable environmental damage and pollution for the residents of All Saints way, Grafton Street and surrounding areas. The additional traffic will also have an environmental and health impact on the children and staff at Cronehills school, which is adjacent to the junction X.
    I should not have to remind the Minister, but I do, of the already high levels of pollution caused by motor vehicle exhausts in Birmingham and the black country generally. I also remind him that one regularly reads of people committing suicide by inhaling car fumes, and this

    1189
    scheme will result in thousands of extra vehicles standing in traffic jams and polluting the atmosphere next to a major primary school in my constituency, and a school in the constituency of my hon. Friend.
    The proposals at the next junction along are just as damaging, if that is possible. Instead of the two existing roundabouts in the Carters green area of West Bromwich, there will be one massive roundabout, with a cris-cross system of subways through which local residents from Old Meetings street, Garratt street and the Tantany area of West Bromwich will have to scurry to get to and from the town centre. I can describe these proposals only as a mugger's paradise. I ask the Minister to remember what it was like to use subways in the days before he acquired his ministerial limousine. Does he seriously think that the people of West Bromwich, particularly women and school children, and especially at night, will be happy to be treated like moles while motor vehicles remain on the surface, just so that a few pounds can be saved?
    My opposition to the scheme is based on the fact that, once again, a great deal of money, around £93 million, is being spent on what I and my hon. Friend can describe only as a road to nowhere, to which must be added the minimum of £15 million for house purchase and other acquisitions.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Snape: No, I will not. The hon. Lady knows the tradition with Adjournment debates. Had she told me that she wished to participate, I would have made allowances for that. Furthermore, the scheme does not affect her constituency.
    This scheme has come from a Department that has so far refused to give the go-ahead for worthwhile public transport schemes, such as the Midland metro. Virtually all of line 1 of the metro could be built for the same cost as these disastrous proposals, and if the Minister is really anxious to relieve congestion in West Bromwich and the surrounding areas, his Department can give the go-ahead for loan sanction for the Snowhill-West Bromwich-Smethwick rail line opening. Those two projects are environmentally acceptable, and will be much better value for money than this scheme.
    I have mentioned the impact of this scheme on the environment. Does the Minister intend to see that an environmental impact assessment is carried out before work starts? I remind him that the United Kingdom is a signatory to EC directive 85/337 of 28 June 1985, and annex 1 of that directive says that all motorway and dual carriageways must be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. I have today written to Commissioner Ripa de Meana to ask whether he has been notified as to whether such an assessment has been, or is being, carried out by the Government and, if not, whether he will ensure that this environmentally disastrous project is properly evaluated before the go-ahead is given.
    The original spine road was worth doing only in its entirety, with underpasses at the two junctions that I have mentioned, terminating at the junction with the proposed black country route, connecting with the M6 at junction 10. This half-baked and disastrous alternative is not worth doing, and the Government should put up the money for
    1190
    the original scheme or divert scarce resources to the other economical and environmentally acceptable alternatives that I have outlined.
    I ask the Minister to look again at this scheme. There has been considerable local opposition to these proposals in both the West Bromwich constituencies. Terminating the route at the Patent Shaft site will divert thousands of extra vehicles along Wood Green road in Wednesbury, in my hon. Friend's constituency. Already, a new entrance and exit, to the new Ikea furniture showroom next to the motorway, has been opened in that road, and if the steel terminals in the west midlands are combined in Bescot sidings, it is intended to build another carriageway into Bescot sidings.
    Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend has asked me to point out that the residents of Wood Green road feel that what was a comparatively tranquil town road is being turned into a major highway against their wishes and, indeed, without their views being heard.
    If the Minister is serious about alleviating congestion and about regenerating the black country, he will carry out the scheme properly. I appeal to him even at this late stage to think again, because what he proposes is not merely expensive but environmentally disastrous.
    10.54 pm
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), having read some of the advance local press comments which anticipated the debate. Those comments highlighted the fact that he was going to say that the spine road—the £93 million scheme—should be abandoned and that the money should be spent on other transport infrastructure projects.
    Apparently, the hon. Gentleman did not mention to the press the fact that he wanted to spend not £93 6million but more than £250 million on the road. He also emphasised to the press the fact that he thought that the Black Country development corporation, which has done so much to revive spirits in the black country, should be closed as soon as there was a Labour Government. Of course, that means that it will never be closed, but it was an amazing example of the hon. Gentleman making Opposition policy on the hoof. If there was to be a policy to close any development corporation, one would have expected it to be announced by an environment spokesman rather than by a Front-Bench transport spokesman.
    It appears that the hon. Gentleman's position on this project has much to do with his embarrassment about the fact that, as a transport spokesman of a party committed to reducing investment in roads, he should be arguing the logic of attaching to the road a cost of more than £250 million rather than £93 million. As a result of the logic of his party's position, he is forced to say that it would be better to abandon the scheme altogether rather than to proceed with the two and half miles of road which has the support of industrialists, the chambers of commerce and many people in the black country. His comments in recent weeks were designed—at least, this was their effect—to undermine confidence in the project, although, now that it has become clear that the Government will be re-elected, that confidence will return.
    Mrs. Hicks: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has been so perceptive. That will be welcomed by the majority of business men in the west midlands and by

    1191
    the majority of the colleagues of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). There seems to be tremendous confusion and conflict which my hon. Friend has picked up. I draw his attention to the fact that some Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors have supported the road—we have seen headlines such as
    "Labour in protest at spine road cutback"
    and
    "New bid to save Spine Road".
    Those Labour Members and councillors share my bitter disappointment that the Government could not allocate the funds for the complete road.
    Having expressed my disappointment to my hon. Friend so clearly on many occasions, I invite the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—if he is as united with his colleagues as he appears to believe—to join me in pressing the Government to say that, as soon as finance can be made available, we shall continue the regeneration of the black country and complete the road. He appears to be taking a mealy-mouthed attitude and saying, "Let's back down."
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she should direct her remarks to the Minister.
    Mr. Chope: I accept that my hon. Friend has been commendably consistent in her support for the black country spine road. She is right to draw the House's attention to the inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's attitude. If he wants a longer and more expensive road, he should have the courage of his convictions and should argue for it openly, saying that it would be his party's policy to spend more than £250 million on it. Instead, he is saying that that would not be his party's policy—his party's policy would be to abandon the scheme. That displays a rather bizarre sense of reasoning, and I am sure that the people who depend upon the benefits brought by the revival of the black country for their future employment will find it bizarre, too.
    The black country was intensively developed by extractive and manufacturing industries for more than a century. Over the past 20 years, it has suffered from the decline of its traditional engineering trades, but the resilience of the area and its people has seen its fortunes gradually improve through the 1980s. In order to give the core of the area a major boost on the path back to prosperity, the Government set up the Black Country development corporation in 1987. The corporation's principal aims are to encourage new economic initiatives, to foster innovation and to facilitate regeneration.
    Right from the start, the development corporation recognised that the building of a new spine road through the area was crucial to the success of its strategy for regeneration as a means of opening up the area and securing better access to the national road network. Consultants looked at various options and identified a feasible route. That would be a 4.5 mile long dual carriageway road linking the black country route—and thence junction 10 of the M6—with junction 1 of the M5. At that stage, the estimated cost was £50 million. On that basis, in early 1988 the Government agreed to provide 100 per cent. funding. The scheme was to be promoted jointly by Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton metropolitan borough councils.
    The three local authorities, working together with the Department and the development corporation, made quick progress. Within 18 months, planning permission
    1192
    had been obtained and highways orders made in time for a public inquiry to be set up in September 1989. By that time, however, it was already apparent that the costs of the scheme were escalating alarmingly, and the review of the project was carried out.
    As a result of the review it became clear that the scheme in its original form, far from costing £50 million, would cost between £245 million and £290 million—a staggering amount for a mere 4.5 miles of new road. So, although the Government were very much aware of the importance of the spine road to the regeneration of the black country, it was clear that substantial savings would have to be made to enable the road to be built within the time scale required for the delivery of the development corporation"s programme.
    The outcome is that the road will run for about 2.5 miles, and will thereby serve the largest single development site in the development corporation's area. It will provide access to more than 500 acres of redundant and derelict land. Apart from the significant environmental improvement that that will represent, there will be major development and employment benefits for the black country as a whole.
    The new road will still be built to dual carriageway standard, with at-grade junctions, at an estimated cost of £93 million. At £36 million per mile, the scheme is still expensive, although it represents a worthwhile investment.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has complaints about individual aspects of the design of the road, which is now subject to consultation on the basis of a planning application. He is aware that there is still scope for detailed revisions to the design, and I hope that what he has said about the impact on his constituents of certain aspects of the design can be accommodated as far as possible by the developers.
    However, the fundamental issue whether it is wise to build the road is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument. My view and that of the Government—and that of almost everybody in the black country, including the development corporation, the chambers of commerce, and businesses in the area—is that it is much better for the black country to have the spine road as proposed than to have no spine road at all.
    That is why I am sure that people will come out in droves to support the Government's policy when they have the opportunity later this year.
    Mr. Snape: When the Minister said that people would come out in their droves, I presume that he was referring to the forthcoming general election. Is he interested in the fact that people came out in their droves in West Bromwich and Wednesbury to express their unanimous opposition to the present proposals?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) says that that is not the case. The information before me shows that there is substantial support for the scheme. As with every road scheme, some people who live close to the proposed route make detailed observations and representations.
    If the Black Country development corporation, which is at the heart of the project and which has promoted it so effectively, were to be closed down, as the hon. Gentleman says a Labour Government would do, the consequences would be dramatic for the black country. Future Government investment of £109 million would be lost in

    1193
    the next three years, and substantial further investment beyond that would also be lost. Some 1,200 acres of developable land could not be developed. The corporate plan, which includes proposals for the development of some 10 million sq ft of industrial and commercial floor space, could not be realised. Some 3,000 houses in the corporate plan would not be built, and some 18,000 new jobs that would be generated under the corporate plan would not be generated. Furthermore, some £780 million of private investment resulting from the development corporation's work would not take place. That is dramatic stuff.
    The other day, Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were in Birmingham saying that they favoured a west midlands
    1194
    regional development corporation. Why did not they take the opportunity to announce that their policy was to close down the Black Country development corporation, which offers so much prospect of improving employment opportunities, investment and regeneration in the black country?
    The Government have committed themselves to improving the black country, and I have pleasure in commending our policy to the House. Although the hon. Gentleman may be concerned about the detail of the road, in substance he is wrong to suggest that it would be better for the black country to have no road at all than to have this £93 million road.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Tribunals (Allowances)
  Tribunals (Allowances)
TRANSPORT
  London Travel Statistics
  London Travel Statistics
  Safety Belts
  Safety Belts
  Licensed Vehicles
  Licensed Vehicles
  Cornelis Johanna
  Cornelis Johanna
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Waste Oil
  Waste Oil
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
  BT Loan Stocks
  BT Loan Stocks
  British Gas (Debt Repayment)
  British Gas (Debt Repayment)
  Departmental Reports
  Departmental Reports
  HMSO
  HMSO
  Rents
  Rents
  Local Authority Borrowing
  Local Authority Borrowing
ENERGY
  Research Institutes
  Research Institutes
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Research
  Nuclear Research
  Sizewell B
  Sizewell B
  Electricity Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
ENVIRONMENT
  Limestone Pavement
  Limestone Pavement
  Opencast Mining Pollution
  Opencast Mining Pollution
  Sprinkler Systems
  Sprinkler Systems
  Research Institutes
  Research Institutes
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Home Safety
  Home Safety
  City Challenge
  City Challenge
  European Environment Agency
  European Environment Agency
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Business Rates
  Business Rates
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Environmental Policy
  Environmental Policy
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Thurrock Borough Council
  Thurrock Borough Council
  Wild-Caught Bird Trade
  Wild-Caught Bird Trade
  Defence Estate
  Defence Estate
WALES
  Radon Gas
  Radon Gas
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Children's Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
  Children's Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
  Primary School Classes
  Primary School Classes
  Public Opinion Surveys
  Public Opinion Surveys
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  UN Environment and Development Conference
  UN Environment and Development Conference
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
HOME DEPARTMENT
  National Alliance of Womens Organisations
  National Alliance of Womens Organisations
  Police Truncheon (Replacement)
  Police Truncheon (Replacement)
  Knife-proof Vests
  Knife-proof Vests
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Police (Body Armour)
  Police (Body Armour)
  DNA Profiles
  DNA Profiles
  Prison Estate
  Prison Estate
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ghana and Guatemala
  Ghana and Guatemala
  International Organisations
  International Organisations
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  East Timor
  East Timor
  India
  India
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Thaira Parveen
  Thaira Parveen
  Gulfraz Khan
  Gulfraz Khan
DEFENCE
  Contaminated Land
  Contaminated Land
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Housing
  Housing
  Sleeping Accommodation
  Sleeping Accommodation
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Vehicles (UK Content)
  Vehicles (UK Content)
  Military Equipment Fairs (Baghdad)
  Military Equipment Fairs (Baghdad)
  Military Equipment Sales
  Military Equipment Sales
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment, South Derbyshire
  Employment, South Derbyshire
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Balligan House
  Balligan House
  Prison Security
  Prison Security
  Special Needs Education
  Special Needs Education
  Political Initiatives
  Political Initiatives
  Employment
  Employment
  Constitutional Talks
  Constitutional Talks
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Crime
  Crime
  Investment
  Investment
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Security
  Security
  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Belfast City Centre
  Belfast City Centre
  Roads
  Roads
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Human Rights (Exports)
  Human Rights (Exports)
  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Firework Accidents
  Firework Accidents
  ECGD
  ECGD
  Publicity
  Publicity
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Stobhill Maternity Unit
  Stobhill Maternity Unit
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Certificate of Education
  Certificate of Education
  Polytechnics (Competitive Tendering)
  Polytechnics (Competitive Tendering)
  Further Education (Special Needs)
  Further Education (Special Needs)
  Schools (Selection)
  Schools (Selection)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Irradiation
  Irradiation
  Clenbuterol
  Clenbuterol
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
HEALTH
  Bio Products Laboratory
  Bio Products Laboratory
  Food Hygiene
  Food Hygiene
  Publications
  Publications
  Hydatidosis
  Hydatidosis
  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Extra-contractual Referrals
  GP Fundholding
  GP Fundholding
  Capital Charges
  Capital Charges
  Risk Money Reserves
  Risk Money Reserves
  Care Homes
  Care Homes
  Operations Statistics
  Operations Statistics
  Special Health Authorities
  Special Health Authorities
  Attendance Allowances
  Attendance Allowances
SOCIAL SECURITY
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  Crisis Loans
  Crisis Loans
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Local Offices, Heywood and Middleton
  Local Offices, Heywood and Middleton
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Tributes to the Late Earl St. Aldwyn
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, many of your Lordships will have heard by now of the death of Lord St. Aldwyn. I never had the privilege of serving with Michael St. Aldwyn. It was shortly after he ceased to be the Opposition Chief Whip here that I entered the Whips' Office in another place, but there is a bond between all of us who have been lucky enough to serve as Whips. We are unique in knowing more about everything in Parliament than anyone else and saying less about it. I was brought up to know him as a fine exponent of the Whipping art.
Michael St. Aldwyn served this House and my party as Chief Whip in both government and opposition for 20 years but he was also in a very special way a servant of this House. He knew and valued and never failed to uphold the customs and traditions of this place. He was the model of a Conservative Chief Whip; upright, spruce and impeccably turned out. His views were straightforward and they were straightly delivered. He matched kindness with firmness and tempered the political battles with generosity and magnanimity. He possessed an encyclopaedic knowledge of this House and its ways and carried out his duties in an exemplary fashion at a time of great change here. He was, I know, a most perceptive and wise counsellor to the many Leaders of the House with whom he served. Above all, he was much loved. We mourn his passing and send a message of deepest sympathy to his widow, Lady St. Aldwyn, and the whole family.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, we are all very sad to hear the news about Lord St. Aldwyn. He was a colleague of great charm and friendliness. It was always a pleasure to see him, and in the latter years when he was indisposed and here in a wheelchair we always enjoyed having a chat with him. He was cheerful and continued to take a close interest in the affairs of the House which he served with distinction for so many years.
To serve as Chief Whip for an historic 20 years and to remain popular and well liked must be almost a unique achievement. I think the secret was that he genuinely liked people and he knew how to deal with the variety of characters that we produce in this place. He also served in the Ministry of Agriculture, as I did, and I know the respect and affection in which he was held in that department. He will be remembered here for a long time as a great servant of the House and of his native county, Gloucestershire. We send our deep felt sympathy to Lady St. Aldwyn and the family.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches join in the tributes to Lord St. Aldwyn and send our sympathy to his wife and family. Those of us who came into your Lordships' House while Lord St. Aldwyn was Chief Whip will remember him as a remarkable figure, a "verray parfit gentil knight"—that is no demotion—and someone who represented the very best of the tradition of the House. As a Government Chief Whip he was, of course, a faithful servant to the Government but we on the Opposition Benches—I think I probably speak for the Labour Benches as well as for those on these Benches—always knew that we would have a very fair deal and a proper consideration of our point of view. It is that ability to look above party interests and to appreciate the wider needs of the House as a whole while remaining a good party man, which he personified, which we so greatly appreciated.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on the Cross-Benches I rise to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid from all sides of the House on the passing of my old friend Lord St. Aldwyn. There is a very real poignancy between two approximate coevals when the younger passes on before the older. It was with a great sense of loss that I read in The Times about his passing. Only a few years separated us at school and in the dances of the London season a few years later we went to the same parties. We were friends all our lives. He was a great gentleman, a model to whom any Member of your Lordships' House might legitimately seek to conform. In that spirit I send my true sympathy to his family and friends and to the party which he graced for so long as Chief Whip.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, living as I do in one of the three counties of the Three Counties Show and the Three Choirs Festival and being a neighbour of Gloucestershire I should like to say how much Lord St. Aldwyn was loved and respected in his native county. He was for many years a conscientious church warden of Coln St. Aldwyn. As your Lordships know, he grappled with illness over a number of years towards the end. He was Vice-Lieutenant and did much for the County Yeomanry. He was a Friend of Gloucester Cathedral and was associated with the recent 900th centenary appeal for that great building. I know how much he will be missed in both county and diocese. Therefore, I am glad to be associated with this tribute and to join in sending to his widow, Lady St. Aldwyn, and his large family our sympathy and encouragement.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may be able to add a few words to the tributes paid to Lord St. Aldwyn. I worked with him for many years as a previous Leader of this House but perhaps more importantly as a previous Government Chief Whip and also an Opposition Chief Whip. Lord St. Aldwyn saw me through the first 18 difficult months after the 1964 election when the Labour Government was formed. I had very little experience of what were known as the usual channels. If it had not been for Lord St. Aldwyn, with his wisdom and advice, I do not

1415
think we could have had as smooth a transition as we had at that time. My grateful thanks must always be with him for that period.
He was also a man of this House well beyond the usual channels. When I was Opposition Chief Whip I remember that he phoned me in the middle of August to ask whether I could come to London because there was a major problem. I arrived to find that the bank was not prepared to extend the overdraft of the Refreshment Department. He and I wrote a letter of comfort to the bank to ensure that the wages of our staff could be paid.
Lord St. Aldwyn also understood the nature of the House. Those who were in the House at that time will remember that the Tories sat at one table, the Labour Party at another, the Liberals at another and noble and learned Lords at yet another. We appealed to all parties that we should mix around a bit, but to no avail. I remember the noble Lord coming to me and saying, "There is only one solution. We shall have just one table, and they will have to sit at it, irrespective of their party political allegiance". That in itself did a great deal towards establishing what I might call the cohesion of the House, irrespective of our divisions.
The noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, was impeccable in his relations with all quarters of the House. He was, in my view, an example of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary approach. The House, I think, is not merely sad, but weaker. I hope that his example will never be forgotten in the procedures of the House and the relationships among all quarters of the House in the conduct of its business. Perhaps I may join in sending my sympathy to Lady St. Aldwyn. I offer my sincere sympathy to noble Lords opposite on their loss on this occasion.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I feel that I cannot add anything to what has been so able and eloquently expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to my late noble friend Michael St. Aldwyn. I should like only to say how much I, as an inexperienced Leader of your Lordships' House, owed, for three years or more, to his very sage advice. That said, I should like only to say that in my opinion my late noble friend was the wisest of wise men in the ways of your Lordships' House, but he was also the nicest of nice men, and a marvellous friend. I should like to add my sympathy to that which has already been expressed to Lady St Aldwyn and the family.
Lord Elton: My Lords, everyone who has so far spoken has spoken as the holder of great office. I should like merely to add a postscript to what has been said on a moving occasion: that for those of us who came under his tutelage as new boys on the Back Benches he was held in great reverence and very great affection. He was always approachable. One discovered that under the air of patrician calm which he laid over every crisis there was a keen perception of personal needs and an extremely efficient management of machinery. He will be mourned by many who have never sat on the Front Bench who have lost a friend as well as a leader.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, perhaps I may add just one word, because it was Lord St. Aldwyn who greeted the four ladies who came into the House in 1958. No woman had ever been here before. There was a great query in many people's minds, and also in what they said, as to how we should be received. There is no doubt that Lord St. Aldwyn made the entrance for the four of us easier than anyone else could have done. I was always extremely grateful to him as, I think, were the others; but I am the only one of the originals left. I make these comments with great feeling, and I should like to send my sympathy to his family.

East Timor
3.15 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to establish a UN commission to investigate the Santa Cruz massacre of 12th November 1991.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the UN Secretary-General has said that he hopes to send a personal representative to East Timor to examine the situation further. That is a welcome step which we fully support.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that high standing Indonesians have given disturbing accounts which are completely at odds with the official report of the inquiry in Indonesia; that there are now further disturbing reports of the systematic victimisation of people since the massacre; and that the UN rapporteur on torture has now reported to the UN Commission on Human Rights that there is the regular torture of political prisoners? In those circumstances, does the Minister accept that the House will be behind the Prime Minister in all the pressure that he can bring to bear when he is at the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have studied the interim report of the national commission of inquiry made on 26th December and announced on 27th December. We issued a statement on 28th January. With regard to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, yes, we fully support what the Secretary-General wishes to do and we shall give him all the help that he needs.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is this country still exporting armaments of one kind or another to Indonesia? Secondly, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that no British arms were used in the massacre referred to in my noble friend's Question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations Charter to secure the means of their own self-defence. Applications to export British defence equipment are scrutinised carefully on a case-by-case basis. We do not allow the export of arms and equipment which are

1417
likely to be used for repressive purposes against civil populations. In the case of Indonesia, that criterion extends to the possible repression of the civil population of East Timor. We have no evidence to show that what has been sent to Indonesia has been used against the population of East Timor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thought that I had given the noble Earl information that British machines were being used, and were used at the time of the massacre. That information was given to me and the public by an eye witness at the massacre who said that British Range Rovers were being used by the police and the armed forces. Has the noble Earl made any investigations to discover whether or not what I told him then was true?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness who answered the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I know that it is confusing for him that two different Ministers have been involved, but it might be right to get the correct person in future. My noble friend Lord Cavendish did say that Land Rovers were being used, but I believe that the House will agree with me that those are not arms.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is it a fact that the United Kingdom is a major exporter of armaments to Indonesia?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it depends upon what the noble Baroness means by "major". We have supplied some arms in the past, but, as I have said, under the UN Charter every country has the right to acquire arms for self-defence.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are the second largest supplier of arms to Indonesia after the Americans; and that many people believe that the principal purpose of the Indonesian army is to suppress its own people? It is therefore difficult to advance convincing arguments that somehow we are not implicated in the horrible events that occurred during the massacre.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one has to look carefully at the structure of the government and the way in which Indonesia is run. The army plays an important role, as I believe the noble Lord knows. A great deal of the army's work is involved with construction, the building of schools and the creation of the infrastructure. I do not agree with many of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not clear from all the evidence that the Indonesian Government are a cruel and repressive regime, responsible for massacres? What justification is there for selling arms to a government like that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no one would, and the Government do not, condone what happened in East Timor when the Portuguese left in a hurry and there was no proper government of East Timor, or, indeed, after the Indonesians invaded and took control of East Timor. However, that is not to say that as a whole the Indonesian Government repress all
1418
their people. They have tried hard. No one could condone the East Timor incident and we seek to make sure that it does not happen again.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, in view of the massacre and in the light of the report, will my noble friend give some thought to encouraging the United Nations to consider sanctions against Indonesia, following the example of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is wrong to compare the situations in East Timor and Kuwait.

Iraqi Supergun
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hollickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they had received information about the Iraqi supergun project prior to the delivery to Iraq, notwithstanding the arms embargo, of parts for the supergun.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, these matters are being examined by a Select Committee in another place and I shall confine myself to the basic facts.
The Government first became aware of the existence of an Iraqi long range gun project in the autumn of 1989. A clear connection between this project and the Iraqi contracts with British companies for the supply of tubes did not become apparent until the latter part of March 1990. As the noble Lord will recall, Customs and Excise took swift action to detain a number of steel tubes at Teesport on 10th April 1990 and Customs action after 10th April led to materials being stopped in Turkey and places across Europe. I understand that various parts for the supergun are now known to have left the United Kingdom destined for Iraq between early 1989 and 5th April 1990.
The swift action by the British authorities both to detain the tubes at Teesport and to work with other governments to prevent material from reaching Iraq from other countries played an important part in halting the development of what could have been a weapon of considerable destructive power.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, I fear that I must press him further on this murky matter. Will he confirm that in 1988 Sir Hal Miller, Conservative MP for Bromsgrove, Mr. Rex Bayliss, the managing director of Walter Somers, the company manufacturing the supergun, and the Belgian Government all informed the British Government of plans to build the supergun and export it to Iraq? Will he explain why the British Government took no notice of this information and turned a blind eye to the export?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, all these matters have been widely ventilated. Sir Hal Miller made contact with the Government in 1988 about an order for steel tubes from Walter Somers. This led the Government to consider whether a licence was required for their export. The conclusion was reached—wrongly, as it turned out—that no export licence was required. I

1419
remind the House that a full Statement was made by Mr. Tim Sainsbury in the other place on 3rd December 1990.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said and the fact that a number of government departments are involved—I assume that that is the reason the noble Lord the Leader of the House is answering the Question—is there not the strongest case now for a full government inquiry into the matter? Will the noble Lord urge that upon his right honourable friend the Prime Minister?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, some facts are absolutely clear. The Government did not know of the supergun project at all until autumn 1989. They did not know of the involvement of British companies until shortly before the action of Customs on 10th April 1990. Before March 1990, it was thought that the pipes, described as being for petrochemical purposes, had no military purpose. On that basis, the Department of Trade and Industry had told the companies concerned that they would not require export licences. Once a connection between the United Kingdom companies and the project was drawn, action was swiftly taken. As I said, this matter is being inquired into by a Select Committee in another place. I see no need for any separate inquiry.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, since the matter is under consideration by a Select Committee in the other place, would it not be a great mistake to have a parallel inquiry which would undoubtedly cause a difficulty with the House of Commons?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as I said and as I can tell my noble and learned friend, there is no conceivable need for such an inquiry because of the facts I have related to the House and the inquiry being held in another place.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether there was any communication between the United Kingdom and the United States governments over the issue?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not have the faintest idea. If I did, I certainly would not this afternoon go into details. I have already told your Lordships that all these matters are being examined by a Select Committee in another place. I could not touch on any matters which might be thought to concern the security service. All kinds of allegations have been bandied about, many wild in the extreme. We ought to keep our heads in the matter and noble Lords should listen to what I have said. The facts which I have related to the House are now well known.
Lord Alport: My Lords, is it not a great achievement that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise —a government organisation which often receives a good deal of criticism—took the first action to stop this? Its vigilance should be commended by the House and the country.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. There is no doubt that the action taken by HM Customs prevented the development of this gun which could have been a weapon of great destructive power. It is surprising that people have been so free with their criticisms instead of being free with congratulations to HM Customs and Excise for the work they did.

Cigarettes: Prices
3.26 p.m.
Viscount Hanworthasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the difference in retail price between cigarettes in the United Kingdom and in other EC member states; whether they will press the Community to harmonise prices; and whether they believe that any differences in price could encourage smuggling in view of the proposed relaxation of Customs controls after 1992.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I shall circulate a full list of retail prices in the most popular price category in all member states in the Official Report. However, for a packet of 20 cigarettes prices range from 32 pence in Spain to £2.32 in Denmark.
The Government are well aware that the wide cigarette price differentials after the abolition of routine fiscal frontier controls in 1993 will increase the risk of smuggling. Developing Customs controls will address that risk. For fiscal, health and trade reasons, the Government's long-term aim remains to persuade other member states to raise their prices towards United Kingdom levels.
Following is the information referred to:

Spain

32 pence

Greece

42 pence

Portugal

60 pence

Luxembourg

81 pence

Italy

87 pence

France

105 pence

Netherlands

105 pence

Belgium

113 pence

Germany

146 pence

Ireland

184 pence

UK

208 pence

Denmark

233 pence

Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree first that the Treasury is likely to lose substantially if the number of cigarettes that can be imported is raised? Secondly, despite our concern that people who smoke should keep to low tar cigarettes, is there not a danger that substantial numbers of high tar cigarettes will enter the country?
Finally, does the Minister not feel that it would be a grave mistake, were there to be an increase in taxation on tobacco or cigarettes in the Budget?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the latter point, I cannot comment on my right honourable friend's proposals for cigarette taxation in the forthcoming Budget.
As concerns losses to the Revenue, the single market involves removing barriers to trade and to people and we are scrapping import documentation for European Community trade. We need to get rid of travellers' allowances limits as well if we are to abolish the fiscal frontier for people.
We successfully negotiated agreement on minimum indicative levels to minimise the risk of imports. There will be a revenue loss, but I believe that we have achieved a good balance between safeguarding United Kingdom commercial interests and ensuring the free movement of travellers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the wide price differential which has been disclosed by my noble friend in his Answer have a bearing on the proposals currently before the European Community for the abolition of frontier controls?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the abolition of frontier controls will increase the risk of smuggling. That is why it is important that we should develop our Customs controls in order to address that risk. Customs are therefore developing controls designed to deter illegal tobacco imports. The greater use of intelligence in consultation with the trade and other member states will be used by increased inland staff who will target illicit activity. In addition, the new Department of Health labelling requiring conspicuous health warnings in English will help identify foreign duty paid goods.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that smuggling occurs within the European Community now? Half the American tobacco sold in Spain is smuggled in and the government lose £60 million a year as a result. Will the Minister tell us what safeguards will be established on 1st January 1993 to stop the smuggling of cheap cigarettes from abroad into this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware that smuggling takes place on the Continent of Europe. In the previous reply I gave to my noble and learned friend I outlined some of the proposals which Customs have suggested to prevent smuggling into this country. At the December meeting of ECOFIN a minimum indicative level of 800 cigarettes was agreed. That will assist Customs in distinguishing between commercial and personal imports.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the other countries of the EC refuse to increase their prices in accordance with the request of the British Government, would it not be foolish in the extreme for the British Government to widen further the differential between prices in this country and prices in other countries in the EC? Would that not lead to an
1422
increase in smuggling and, even worse, to an increase in the consumption of high tar cigarettes imported from abroad?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have made clear in EC negotiations that we will not accept policies that undermine UK health and fiscal policy. That course has proved successful in so far as maximum rates or target rates that would have required us to reduce our duties have been abandoned. My right honourable friend the Chancellor made it a condition of agreement to the post-1992 regime that a satisfactory system to distinguish between genuine personal importation of tobacco and commercial imports would be established. That system embodies the indicative level I referred to.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to intervene in a moment of controversy and disagreement. However, surely everyone would agree that a swingeing increase in the excise duties on cigarettes is vital on public health grounds. I have no objection to people killing themselves but they should do so at high cost rather than low cost. Should we not face up to the obvious fact that, by any definition, a single market means no frontier controls and free trade? That leads inevitably to the necessity of equalising duties. There is no way round it. I appreciate the difficulties Her Majesty's Government face. Any government would face those difficulties. Is the Minister aware, however, that to pursue any other course would lead to all kinds of difficulties in terms of smuggling and other illegal activities? Does he agree that in the end a single market means no frontier controls and no differentials in excise duties?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already said that the single market will require changes in frontier controls. As regards common excise duties, we have sought the agreement of our European partners to increased excise duties abroad. There has been an increase, and the price of cigarettes will increase in other countries. However, as cigarettes are so much cheaper in some countries, the impact will not be great. I have already said that I cannot comment on what my right honourable friend might announce in the forthcoming Budget as regards duties. However, I should point out that the Government have increased total taxes on cigarettes by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Consumption has declined by nearly 25 per cent. during that period. Therefore the increase has had some effect on consumption.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, my noble friend has recognised that the ratio of cigarette prices between Britain and other countries is 7:1. That means a huge incentive to smuggle cigarettes. When smuggled cigarettes are seized and then sold by the authorities —wherever they are sold—some of that money could be put towards basic medical research to discover why it is that the Japanese, who smoke twice as many cigarettes per head as we do, have half the number of deaths attributable to smoking that we have.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a different point. As regards funding medical

1423
research with money that might be raised through selling seized smuggled goods, I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of the Treasury's attitude to hypothecation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when the frontier controls and Customs duties are abolished, how will the question of smuggling arise?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, an indicative level of 800 cigarettes for personal consumption has been agreed. Amounts in excess of that for commercial purposes will be subject to United Kingdom duties and tax.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I had hoped we would get through this Question without the zealots raising their heads. I am disappointed that that has not been the case. My Bristol connections are well known and I must say that I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's comments. However, will there be constant vigilance while cigarettes are manufactured in Western Europe to ensure that the British industry will not be put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis its competitors?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of the anxiety of the British tobacco industry in this matter. The Government agree with the Tobacco Advisory Council that ad valorem tobacco duty favours cheap products and magnifies differences in manufacturers' prices. Indeed, we recorded in the ECOFIN meeting minutes that what is needed for the future is a minimum duty expressed as a cash sum instead of, or as well as, the figure of 57 per cent. agreed by the council.

Blood Transfusions and AIDS: Compensation
3.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoffasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their refusal to compensate non-haemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus through contaminated NHS blood transfusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we have every sympathy for the people who have suffered in this way. Nevertheless, the Government's policy remains one of compensation upon proof of negligence; the only concession relating to people who suffer the double misfortune of haemophilia and HIV.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, sympathy is not enough in this case. There is a strong moral obligation on the National Health Service, and therefore on the Government, to compensate people who have suffered in this way. Is the noble Baroness aware that it would be extremely difficult to prove negligence—even if one attempted to do so—because of the non-availability of certain confidential records within the health service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, any case where a patient suffers a medical accident is, of course, a great tragedy. However, both your Lordships' House, another place and the Royal Commission have indicated that the Government should not go down the path of no-fault compensation which the noble Lord advocates. It must be remembered that we offer first rate services for everyone suffering from HIV and AIDS. Some £200 million has been earmarked this year especially for that area to spend on those suffering from HIV and AIDS. We took the view that haemophiliacs were a special case.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that there is no question of no-fault compensation, which was rejected by the House of Commons? If the Government took this step they would go no further in that direction than they did in the case of the haemophiliacs and the amount of money involved would be a tiny proportion of the amount awarded to them. Both cases spring from treatment that was received in good faith from the NHS. How can the Government make a distinction?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we consider that the haemophiliacs are a special case because the health, social and financial problems caused by the haemophiliacs' lifelong condition were exacerbated by the onset of HIV. It was that combination of circumstances that persuaded us to make a concession in that case.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, have members of the department which my noble friend represents so well in this House ever heard of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher? If they have not, will they look it up in Halsbury's Laws of England, in which I hope I may declare a modest interest?
The Earl of Halsbury: Me too!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for those comments. I suggest that everyone should take his advice and look up that case.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the Government's estimate of the number of people who would be affected if compensation were paid, and the likely cost of that on public funds? Will she confirm that payments have been made to people who are not HIV infected but were the marital partners of HIV infected haemophiliacs? Those payments were made to compensate for stress. How, in logic, can the Minister defend those payments and not payments to the people we are discussing who have been infected with the HIV virus?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the total number of reported cases in this particular category is 190, of whom not all were transfused in the United Kingdom. The estimated cost of extending the most recent settlement for haemophiliacs—which would be the action to be taken—would not be insignificant and could exceed £10 million. While comparisons are always difficult it should be remembered that £10

1425
million equates, for example, to the cost of 1,000 kidney transplants, 500 heart transplants or 300 bone marrow transplants. These are very difficult decisions.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is it accurate to say that the Royal Commission—by which I assume the noble Baroness means the Pearson Commission —came down against no-fault for medical negligence? The commission found that a very difficult chapter to write but suggested that the matter be kept under review. It did not come to a firm conclusion. Is it also fair to say that the decision in another place on a particular Private Member's Bill did not relate to the general principle but to the particular course of action proposed in that Bill—with which I do not agree—which was not acceptable?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the measures and the concept were discussed fully in both Houses in relation to that Private Member's Bill. It is a difficult area. Of course the Government are keeping the matter under review. As we announced during the passage of the Private Member's Bill, we are looking at the length of the legal process and introducing measures to improve the procedures. I understand that the period for consultation in relation to arbitration on medical negligence comes to an end tomorrow.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the proposal, which I think came from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be set up to inquire into no-fault compensation limited to medical accidents? If she is aware of that suggestion, is she also aware that it received approval on all sides of the House? If she is aware of that, too, does she know what is being done about it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware of the point raised by my noble friend today and on previous occasions. My answer on previous occasions was that this is a matter for the usual channels. Perhaps I may repeat that answer now.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister give an answer to my first supplementary question as to whether she is aware of the difficulty of proving fault in such cases because of the lack of access to evidence which is contained in the confidential files of the National Health Service? If the Government do not intend to provide compensation, as referred to in my first Question, what do they intend to do to enable lawyers to bring actions for negligence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise that there are difficulties in relation to preserving blood donor anonymity in these cases. In those circumstances the courts themselves will decide whether the greater public interest lies in disclosing further details.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it not a fact that the contaminated blood which was transfused into innocent people here was imported from America? Does that not give the people who have consequently
1426
suffered a very strong case for understanding, as well as compassion, on the part of the department and for being given the compensation they deserve?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, every medical accident is a human tragedy. The noble Lord's argument could be made in relation to any major accident. The important point in this case is that we are providing first class treatment for HIV and AIDS sufferers and we have taken precautions to ensure the safety of the blood supply. That includes the fact that since October 1985 all donations have been screened for HIV antibodies.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is the established practice in Question Time in this House that when 30 minutes is shown on the clock, which indicates that the 31st minute is passing, I should rise in order to make the business statement.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Committee on the recommitment of six consolidation Bills relating to social security will be taken.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act 1991 and the Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991. The textual amendments to the 1973 Act which were made during the last session have made an early consolidation highly desirable.
This Bill, which is pure consolidation, has been drafted at the Law Commission. I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing my appreciation, and I trust that of your Lordships' House, for that further contribution of the Law Commission and the parliamentary draftsmen to tidying up the contents of the statute book.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will then be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the animal kingdom has many friends in your Lordships' House and a special place in your Lordships' hearts when it comes to a discussion about badgers. It is remarkable and rather wonderful that the time of the very busy Law Commission and an overtaxed parliamentary draftsmen's department should have been directed to a consolidation measure relating to the protection of

1427
badgers. I should like to associate myself very much with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his expression of gratitude.
I happen to know that the police are extremely grateful that the consolidation measure is to come before your Lordships and a Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and the other place with a view to it coming on to the statute book. That will make their lives, and also the lives of badgers, much easier.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to offer my humble thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for introducing the Bill and to associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend. To consolidate the law on badgers adds dignity, clarity and authority to the law for the protection of Britain's largest and best loved mammal. We should be grateful for that.
I would only add that it is time we had a similar Bill relating to dogs so that we can clear up the biggest animal mess.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, badgers are extremely lucky to be given such close attention so soon after the passing of the legislation to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred. I am stunned that the legislation should be consolidated now. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would give consideration to helping thousands of humans in this country, namely, the secretaries of various social clubs throughout the country; who would be more than pleased if the plethora of legislation affecting such clubs were consolidated in such a speedy manner. That would make their job a great deal easier.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I believe that the Badgers Bill originally emanated from the noble Earl, Lord Arran. Following the two Bills agreed last year, which complicated matters, we greatly welcome the consolidation in the Bill. Not only will it help the police, it will also help badger lovers and environmentalists who were anxious to ensure that the two Bills enacted last year were properly identified.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have welcomed the consolidation. The question of which parts of our legislation to consolidate is always a difficult one. There is always a tendency to look for parts which are relatively easy to consolidate quickly. For reasons that I have hinted at, the badgers legislation happens to be in that category. The legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, referred is perhaps slightly more difficult and therefore that consolidation may be somewhat delayed.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.50 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 7 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Abolition of community charges]:
Lord Mackie of Benshiemoved Amendment No. 207:
Page 68, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) No person in England and Wales shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993.
(1A) No person in Scotland shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1992.").
The noble Lord said: It would appear logical, on the surface, to end the poll tax in the same year in both Scotland and England. However, the difficulties in Scotland are far greater because the tax was imposed on the people of Scotland by a government whose complexion did not reflect any proper majority of opinion in Scotland. That factor has increased the difficulties and resentments. Not even the Government can maintain that the legislation was good, because they are now abolishing it.
The difficulties are many. The evils resulting from the cutting of services are many. I do not propose to go into them all. However, a concise and interesting statement from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities gave interesting figures. No doubt the Minister has seen them. I should like to put them before the House.
First, it stated that the average poll tax has increased by 20 per cent. from £276 to £330. That is a tremendous increase when one considers that the services that people obtain for it are declining. The reason is succinctly stated. The grant settlement took no account of additional burdens placed on local authorities or shortfalls arising from non-payment of the poll tax. Obviously it is enormously important that the money comes in which funds the services which local authorities pay for themselves.
At the end of December 1991 £328 million remained unpaid in Scotland in respect of years one and two. In this current year £422 million—that is 51 per cent.—remains unpaid with only three months to go to the end of the financial year. In most cases people pay monthly. The figure should have been 25 per cent; it is 51 per cent. Therefore the shortfall will be enormous. The figures are alarming. We continue to press the Secretary of State to take immediate action to remove the requirements for students and

1429
those on income support. They account for a large part of the shortfall, and for very understandable reasons.
I hope and trust that the Minister reads that great organ of public opinion in Scotland the Sunday Post. It produced some interesting figures in a chart last Sunday. Scotland should have the tax abolished a year earlier than in England because the rise in non-payment is spectacular. Even in the Orkney Isles —which are a model of good citizenship—in the first year, at the beginning of December 2.5 per cent. of the poll tax remained unpaid; in the second year the figure was 6.6 per cent; in the third year, the current year, 30.2 per cent. is unpaid at this time. I do not know how any business can survive with such a cash flow deficiency.
The figures for other authorities are even worse. Strathclyde, the largest authority, began with non-payment at 15 per cent.; in the next year the figure was 26.7 per cent.; and this year the figure is 65.8 per cent. The figures from the Sunday Post relate closely to those from CoSLA. They indicate that in another year, bearing in mind that the poll tax is to be abolished, those alarming figures may rise to such an extent that there will be no income in certain cases. I agree that certain members of the Labour Party, but not the Labour Party leadership, instituted a campaign for non-payment. However, the Labour Party leadership has dissociated itself from that. I am afraid that the Scottish National Party is gravely at fault in that it has boosted that campaign. That is entirely wrong. It would make the collection of any form of tax much more difficult.
With such a state of affairs the Government will have to do something to assist Scottish local authorities next year. It is obvious from those figures that the problem will not go away. I suggest that the way forward is to abolish the tax this year and to fund the shortfall out of the general level of income tax until the new tax comes into operation. Otherwise we shall be in a terrible state. I hope that the Government do not take the matter lightly. Members of the Committee may be amused at the suggestion, but let me assure noble Lords that the tendency not to pay will land many people in grave trouble, in particular the Government. A big gesture might do them some good in Scotland although I doubt whether anything could really correct the mistakes that they have made and the low level of esteem to which the Tory Party has fallen. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is the most extraordinary amendment that I can remember being moved even from that centre of eccentricity, the Liberal Benches. As I understand it, the noble Lord's argument is as follows. There has been a shortfall in the collection of this tax. In the year to which his amendment relates there may be a bigger shortfall. Therefore he does not propose to do anything about the shortfall but simply to make it universal by abolishing the tax altogether. He does that in the happy knowledge that he puts forward no other proposal whatever that could conceivably raise the necessary finance over the year in question.
1430
The noble Lord observed that the shortfall should be put on the income tax. However, it may be noted outside the House that not only would the Labour Party, if it came to power, substantially increase the income tax, but it would be aided and abetted in that by the Liberals. It is therefore interesting that what was implicit, and is now explicit in the amendment and in the approach of the Liberal Party, is that one should make up for the loss of the old tax simply by increasing the rate of income tax. I shall not open up the general debate but, at a time of some degree of economic recession, increasing the rate of income tax would be plain crazy. Perhaps the best description of the amendment is that it is plain crazy.
4 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wonder whether the noble Lord is suggesting increasing the income tax only in Scotland. When taxes were increased in various states in Australia there was mass migration from the states which had the unfavourable tax laws to the states which had more favourable tax laws. As result of the noble Lord's extra taxation only for people in Scotland in order to cover what has not been paid in the community charge, shall we have a huge influx of Scots?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may point out two difficulties in the way of the amendment.
It states:
"No person in Scotland shall be subject to a community charge"
after a particular date. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, may not know it but he is now in England. The amendment does not provide for a person who is registered in Scotland nor a person whose permanent residence is in Scotland. It states, "no person in Scotland". The noble Lord is not in Scotland and he will have to pay up by the other date. The contrary anomaly is also true.
Furthermore, it is rather rum that the suggestion should come from the Liberal Democrat Benches. For 300 years the other place has claimed a monopoly on changing the law on taxation. It has long been established—at any rate to its satisfaction—that that applies to local taxes. It is rather rum that the Liberal Democrats should now be going back on the attitude that they held in 1911.
The Earl of Balfour: I too wish to join in the debate in tearing the amendment apart. As I read it I am not certain what will happen in respect of the community water charge that exists in Scotland. At present that amounts to about £21 per head on the community charge. In addition, in order for the amendment to be supported in any way there would need to be different income taxes for England and for Scotland. That would be directly against the Treaty of the Union of Parliaments of 1707. I sincerely hope that Members of the Committee will throw it right out.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may correct a few misapprehensions which appear to have arisen. I certainly was not proposing that the tax should be raised in Scotland. I was proposing that the Government of this country—of

1431
Great Britain—should perhaps alleviate the distress that they have brought to a large area of local government as a result of their mistakes. They should acknowledge that by making up the deficiency of the income of those hard-pressed local governments before the introduction of the new system. I was not proposing that the income tax should be paid purely from Scotland. I was saying that the poll tax was imposed by a United Kingdom government. That system is now in a frightful mess and the Government are repealing their own legislation. Therefore, it appears logical that out of general taxation the mistake in Scotland should be paid for. It is a simple proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, giggles and shakes, and I dare say that to him the matter is extremely amusing, but I am putting forward a most serious point in respect of Scotland and I am looking forward to hearing what he proposes to do about it. I hope that I have corrected the misapprehensions that appear to have arisen on other Benches.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, dug himself into an even bigger hole in his second intervention than he did in his first. He suggested that income tax should be raised throughout the country in order to let the Scots off paying the community charge. He did so on a broad view by saying, "Of course, it is not the people of England who will pay but the Government". I find that suggestion absolutely astonishing, coming from the noble Lord with his experience of business and great experience in this House and in another place.
The Government have no money, save that which they exact in taxation or by other means from the people of this country. Therefore, his second intervention actually meant, "Yes, the Scots should be let off paying their local tax but, oh no, it is not the Scots who will be paying the income tax instead; it is everybody else who will be paying it". That proposal is absolutely dotty.
I do not wish to anticipate future debates because a number of other amendments have been tabled. However, I am worried by the fact that every single time Members of the party opposite suggest that somehow people ought not to have to pay the community charge (which Parliament has required by legislation and which is on the statute book) they are giving aid and comfort to those who argue that it should not be paid.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will recognise that he must withdraw his amendment. I hope that before the debate is ended he will stand up unequivocally and without hesitation and say that if his amendment is not accepted by the Committee he will withdraw it and that, therefore, everybody who owes a community charge to their local authority should pay it. If he does not say that, he and his whole party will be tarnished with the stain of those who have been seeking to encourage people not to pay their taxes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Members of the Committee are having great amusement. If the noble
1432
Lord had listened to what I said he would know that I condemned outright the non-payment of tax and the people who advocate that. I did so right at the start of my speech. I dare say Members of the Committee are having great fun on this occasion. However, the problem will cause immense trouble next year and something must be done about it. The noble Lord knows as well as I that people pay their taxes but that the Government dispose of them. That is the whole point and that is what I said. I hope that we shall hear some sense from the Minister, although I doubt it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): When the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, rose for a second time I was under the impression that he would gallantly withdraw his amendment before taking it any further. As my noble friends have said, it is clearly a ridiculous amendment. There will be a lacuna from April of this year until 1993, when the council tax comes in, during which British taxpayers will have to make up the shortfall in local authority spending. Furthermore—I am not sure whether this is the noble Lord's intention —they will have to make up for non-payment during the past few years. Is the noble Lord also proposing that there should be repayment to all those people in Scotland who have quite happily paid 100 per cent. of their community charge?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister's remark would have some point if I had meant that. What he does not realise is that the longer the community charge goes on the more the people who pay their taxes will have to pay for that. That is the point that I was making most strongly. I certainly do not suggest that the hundreds of millions of pounds owed should not be collected by every means in the power of government.
Lord Strathclyde: As my noble friend Lord Jenkin, said, the point of the amendment is to offer comfort to those people who have not paid and encourage them to continue withholding payment. Surely what should come from Parliament is a cry that non-payers will be followed all the way through the courts until they have paid, and that must include next year.
A piece of information that came from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, at the beginning of his speech was that he obtains his evidence from the Sunday Post. That says a great deal about the Liberal Democrat research department.
I do not believe that there is anything I can usefully add to the debate. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and then we can get on with the other amendments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does the Minister not intend to say anything about the rise in non-payment and the problems that that will cause for local authorities? Do the Government accept that?
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, proposes to cancel the community charge from 31st March 1992. If he wants to have a debate about non-payment, he must table an amendment on that subject. Over the past four days in

1433
Committee we have been discussing the issue of non-payment—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows that as do the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other Members of the Committee.
Lord Stallard: The Minister did not refer to one of the salient points arising from the amendment; namely, that the Bill was introduced in Scotland 12 months before it was introduced in England. The other day I quoted what the Prime Minister said about being bounced into this position. He was upset about it and hoped that that mistake would not be made in future.
The tax was introduced in Scotland 12 months earlier. Surely it is common justice that it should also finish 12 months earlier. The people in Scotland will be saying that they have had to pay the tax for 12 months longer than people in England and, therefore, the tax should be abolished 12 months earlier so that there at least appears to be some form of justice. The Minister did not mention that, but I think that many people will do so.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: What does the noble Lord suggest should replace the community charge next year in Scotland?
Lord Stallard: That is not for me; that is a decision for the Government.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow up a point made by the Minister which rather frightened me. He said that there will be a lacuna. What will this tax be called during that year?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: A lacuna tax.
Baroness Phillips: I am not asking the noble Lord who moved the amendment, but I am asking the Minister. He used that word. It will apply in England, Wales and Scotland. We all remember how the Government introduced the poll tax at a cost of millions. They then had to scrap the community change—and my borough which is typical of all of them had to destroy all the forms—and spend millions of pounds in order to introduce a different tax. That must all be paid for by the unfortunate victims of this Government.
We are now told that a tax must be paid for a year, but is the Minister saying that that tax does not have a name? That does not only apply to Scotland; it will affect all of us.
Lord Strathclyde: We suggest that the community charge will be paid throughout the United Kingdom until March 1993. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, suggests that the community charge should cease in Scotland in March of this year. That will mean that from March 1992 to March 1993 there will be no form of local taxation in Scotland. He suggests that that must be paid for by the United Kingdom tax payer. That is not fair.
Lord Hughes: The Minister made two remarks which I do not believe will be helpful to the Tory Party in Scotland in the forthcoming election. First, he suggested that those who had paid the tax had done so happily. I paid the tax but I would not pretend that I
1434
paid it happily. I paid it because that was the law. Therefore, the suggestion that people paid the tax happily will not go down very well in Scotland.
Secondly, it will not be helpful to the Minister or the Tory Party in Scotland to attack statistics because they happen to be published in the Sunday Post. The Sunday Post did not make up the statistics, it merely published them. The noble Lord may not be the first to discover that to attack the Sunday Post is not necessarily a good political tactic.
Lord Strathclyde: I have no interest in attacking the Sunday Post. I was merely attacking the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for using the Sunday Post's statistics rather than those of the Liberal Democrat research department. I agree that nobody happily pays taxes. However, in that case, why is the main plank of Labour Party policy for the next election that there must be higher taxation?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Government have given no reply as to what they intend to do about the situation so graphically illustrated by the Sunday Post. The Sunday Post takes its statistics, as we all do, from government sources. Those statistics were put in a simple form so that they could be easily understood. That is why I quoted them to the Minister.
In his reply the Minister has not seriously considered the situation that I was trying to bring to his attention. In Scotland, because the tax was imposed a year earlier, the rise in non-payment will cause severe problems next year for the local authorities. I gave figures to illustrate that. I understand that the Government have a tax which could be put in place. That could be expedited. I do not consider that the Minister has seriously considered his reply, which was trivial. Nevertheless, with regret, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 207A not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 208:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Community charge benefits
In subsection (10) of section 131 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Community Charge Benefits) after "in his case" there shall be inserted "which in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1992, shall be up to 100 per cent of his liability for personal community charge contributions." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 208, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211. The amendments are concerned with public expenditure but I hope that I shall be able to convince the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that on this occasion what is proposed is a saving rather than an increase in public expenditure. Under those circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord may feel that another place would not consider that its privilege is being infringed.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It makes not the slightest difference whether the expenditure

1435
increases or diminishes. The other place claims the monopoly on taxation and always objects to attempts by this Chamber to amend taxation whether it be local or national.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble and learned Lord knows very well from his lengthy and distinguished experience, it has been the tradition of this Chamber to discuss such matters and cover them by the privileged amendment at the conclusion of the proceedings in the Chamber.
We are now dealing with a matter of enormous social and financial importance, not just for local authorities but above all for the poorest people in our society. We are dealing with a relatively recent provision, first made in 1988, and carried on in the poll tax, whereby those who in the past had been in receipt of what was then called supplementary benefit (now called income support) and had received 100 per cent. relief from their rates, had that relief restricted to 80 per cent.; so that, whatever their financial circumstances, they were required to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax bill.
The fact that the Government have now agreed that, as regards the new council tax proposed in this legislation, the restriction to 80 per cent. relief will no longer apply and that we shall revert to the pre-1988 position, when 100 per cent. relief was provided, is extremely welcome. It is welcome also that the Government have announced that there will be no clawback as a result of the social security benefits which were raised to cover the 20 per cent. residual payment. All that shows signs of a welcome change of heart in government. We are making a modest request which I hope to justify from the facts; that is, that the Government should take the opportunity to introduce the change from 1st April this year rather than delay it until 1st April 1993.
As the Committee may recall, it was in 1986 with the Social Security Bill that the Government first proposed that there should be a restriction to 80 per cent. in relief granted to the poorest people. It was your Lordships' Chamber which rejected that provision and insisted on 100 per cent. relief. That was overturned by another place, using its undoubted privilege. Since that time there has been a history both of suffering among the poor and attempts by government to deal with at least part of that suffering by increasing the social security benefit cover.
I shall first deal with the issue of benefit cover because it is complex and deserves one or two minutes of the Committee's time. The provisions in the Local Government Finance Act 1988—the poll tax Act—provided that income support benefit should be increased to cover the 20 per cent. residual payment demanded of those who were in receipt of benefit. Unfortunately, even at that time there were problems because the amount was based not on actual poll tax but on estimated average poll tax throughout the country. That meant that the poor people living in areas with a higher poll tax would have to pay more and those living in areas with a lower poll tax would pay less. It is difficult to see the justification for that. It will be readily admitted that one is no more nor less
1436
deserving as a member of the poor according to the local authority area in which one lives. It is difficult to see how greater penalties can be justified for those in areas of higher poll tax.
The problem was exacerbated subsequent to 1988 when upratings of the benefit supposed to cover the 20 per cent. payment were raised according to the Rossi formula of the retail prices index minus housing costs. That was despite the fact that poll tax payments are included in housing costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, reminded us at Second Reading, few people believed that the increase was sufficient and indeed by last year, he said, it was evident that it was not.
Lord Skelmersdale: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, at that time I went on to say "in some places", if my memory serves me correctly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not recall that. If that is the case I shall certainly seek to correct what I said. I do not remember the noble Lord saying that.
Baroness Blatch: It may help the Committee to know precisely what the figures are. In all but six authorities the money that is made available is sufficient for those under 25 and for couples. The six authorities are Labour controlled. In all but two authorities—also Labour controlled—the amount is sufficient for the adult over 25.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am interested in those figures because they conflict with the information available to me. It is true that single adults tend to benefit by an average of 8p a week, but my understanding is that single adults below the age of 25 and couples both lose on average throughout the country. I hold only the national figures; I do not have the advantage of figures for individual authorities.
However, that cannot be the essence of the Government's case. In recognition of that fact they have now conceded that from 1993 the 20 per cent. rule will not apply and there will be no clawback of income support payments. There can be no doubt that there are large numbers of cases of great suffering as a result of the 20 per cent. rule. The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux produced many examples. I could quote enormous numbers but I shall restrict myself to two which strike me as particularly precise.
A citizens' advice bureau in the East Midlands reports the case of a single man in board and lodgings paying £55 per week. He receives £36.70 in income support and £25 in housing benefit. That leaves him with £6.70 to pay for all other expenditure including 20 per cent. of the poll tax. A citizens' advice bureau in Yorkshire reports the case of a long-term sick lady receiving £52.10 in income support and disability pension. Her fuel payments are £18.70 and the payment back of a loan from the social fund £3.67 leaving her with £29.73 a week to live on, out of which she must pay poll tax of £2 a week.
Those are the people in most need in our society. Whatever may be the truth in their cases regarding the benefit cover, the fact is that they are forced to go without food, shelter and warmth in order to make the

1437
20 per cent. payment. The fundamental point we must pursue is that there is no benefit to the public purse. It is well recognised that 70 per cent. of poll tax defaulters are defaulting on the 20 per cent. payment; in other words, they are the ones who are most in need. It is also well recognised that the average cost of collecting the 20 per cent. residual payment is two-and-a-half times the receipts expected from that payment. The public purse therefore is actually paying out two-and-a-half times more than it receives in order to reclaim that small amount of money from those in most need in our society.
It is small wonder that the associations and organisations representing voluntary organisations —the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and so on — support the amendment. It is not surprising that the local authority associations which have the responsibility of collecting the money—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Authorities, the Association of District Councils (which is not Labour controlled) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities —support the amendment. The professionals also support the amendment; for example, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the IRRV, and the Society of London Treasurers. Above all, the Audit Commission, although it is not in a position to support or oppose any amendment, said in its response to the last consultation paper that there was one change which would assist authorities in their current collection arrangements and therefore indirectly facilitate the collection of the council tax—abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum payment from 1st April 1992.
Faced with universal opposition, and in the light of the welcome concessions which the Government have already made, I invite, first, the Minister—rather than the Committee —to recognise the justice of the case and agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is not my intention to do other than pose a single question to the noble Lord. Given that the financial year begins in eight weeks' time, can the noble Lord suggest how he thinks the scheme should be funded? Should it be from national taxation, by clawing back from income support or by giving local authorities discretion, in which case the cost would have to be levied on local taxpayers and would have to exist outside the capping regime?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to get that issue out of the way, what I am suggesting to the Committee is that the cost of collection is so much higher than receipts that no additional funding is required. Indeed, the public purse would benefit from acceptance of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is completely wrong in that sum. I suspect that local authorities would be decidedly unhappy if they were told to cover
1438
the cost, which is £500 million, simply by the money which is used in pursuing those responsible for non-payment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not what they say.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: This amendment should be resisted. It begins with the proposition that the gross cost is probably of the order of £500 million. The noble Lord quoted only two cases. I concede that there may be other, particularly hard, cases and that the circumstances in which people find themselves mean that they have difficulty paying. That is not the point. The noble Lord proposes that everyone who would be paying 20 per cent., or whatever it is, should be let off next year, including a very large number who have paid and who would expect to pay in the last year of the community charge.
I cannot accept that the cost of collecting from those who will not or cannot pay—in the case of those who cannot pay, writing it off—exceeds the revenue that will come from the much larger number of people who will pay when they receive the demands. The sum involved is £500 million—half a billion pounds. I am not an expert on privilege, but I cannot help feeling that another place may have something to say about that if this amendment were to find its way into the Bill.
The noble Lord has not taken on board the point which my noble friend made in her first brief intervention. The fact is that everyone on income support received a significant addition to enable them to pay the charge. That was the point. It was put on the statute book by Parliament. We are now proposing something different for 1993 as regards the council tax.
It is worth putting the figures firmly on the record. The amounts paid in benefit in 1991–92, in order to enable the 20 per cent. to be met are as follows: for a single person under the age of 25, £1.31 per week; for a single person over 25 years of age, £1.48 per week, and for couples £2.62. In all but six local authorities the amount that people are expected to pay is less than the lower of the figures; namely, £1.31. The payment ranges from nought in the London Borough of Wandsworth to £1.30 in Elmbridge District Council. The six are Oxford where the amount is £1.32, which is 1p extra; Basildon, £1.37; Islington, £1.45; Bristol, £1.48; Haringey, £1.61 and Lambeth, £1.73. They are all Labour councils.
It is because a few Labour councils have chosen to make their charge high that some people are not receiving the full compensation which Parliament intended that they should get. I find it offensive that a Labour spokesman should say that not just the people in those boroughs and others who have found it particularly hard to pay but everyone should be let off in the final year at a cost of about £500 million. It does not lie in the mouth of the party opposite to argue that the costs of collection will be more than that. It is not true.
I repeat the point which I made previously. In the case of the community charge, those who seek to persuade their colleagues in this Chamber, in another

1439
place or outside, that certain groups should be let off are giving aid and comfort to those who say that they are therefore justified in not paying what the law requires. That is the effect of what the noble Lord is saying, whatever may be his intention. The clearest way in which this Committee can make it obvious that that is not what this Chamber intends, if the noble Lord chooses to put the amendment to a Division, is for the Committee to reject it firmly. The noble Lord should then make it clear from his position on the Front Bench—if Parliament, the Committee having rejected the amendment, passes the Bill still without the amendment—that everyone should pay.
The noble Lord becomes angry when people point out that many members of his party have been trying to encourage people not to pay the poll tax. He said that that does not apply to him or to those on the Front Bench. The noble Lord owes it to the public and the Chamber to make it clear to everyone that when Parliament says a tax has to be paid, then it is up to every democratic participant in the process to make it clear that that is the law and that the tax should be paid. That applies to everyone.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: How often do I have to repeat that I am not making any statement about myself or my colleagues on the Front Bench? It is the Labour Party view that the law should be obeyed. We say that to anyone in this country whether members of the Labour or Conservative parties, the Liberal Democrats or none. While the law is in force it should be obeyed. That is our advice to every single payer in the country.
Perhaps I may respond to the particular point that the noble Lord and the Minister made concerning an earlier intervention. The noble Lord ignores the fact that the poll tax was reduced in April 1991 by the explicit device of increasing value added tax. That increase comes also from the incomes of the poorest people in our society. Therefore, in addition to the increases which they have to pay for the poll tax, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows, the bottom decile —that is to say, the bottom 10 per cent.—in our society are paying £40 a year extra in value added tax and the next lowest 10 per cent. are paying £52 a year. That is a direct result of the reduction in the poll tax which enables the noble Lord to make those claims.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that VAT enters into the calculation of the RPI. Therefore it enters into the substantial increases in the value of all social security payments under the law as it is generally applied. I do not believe that the noble Lord's argument is a very good one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That has not happened. It takes 12 months for the change to come through and it has not happened for 1991–92.
Lord Elton: It is doubtless of very great interest to Members of the Committee to discuss the merits of this amendment. The discussion may illuminate very considerable weaknesses. I am entirely convinced by the arguments that I have heard on this side of the Chamber. However, Members of the Committee
1440
should not hold the discussion under a misapprehension concerning privilege. I thought that the blood pressure of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might have been in danger if I had intervened in his reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. From his long and great experience in this House, my noble and learned friend knows that we frequently deal with these matters and that they are covered by the privilege amendment at the end of our proceedings.
Members of the Committee should know that the privilege amendment refers to the procedure by which the privilege of the Crown is set aside where any part of legislation touches it. That is made by arrangement with the Crown and has nothing whatever to do with finance or the privilege of the other place. Privilege there concerns alterations in taxation. The judgment as to whether this matter is within or without that privilege is for the other place and not for us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that correction. I was wrong and the noble Lord is right. It is the tradition of this House that we discuss matters of taxation. If we pass amendments which are considered to be in breach of the privilege of another place, Mr. Speaker certifies to that effect and sends them back to us accordingly. It has not been the tradition that we do not discuss matters of taxation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene here because I think the Committee is being inadvertently misled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and also, if I dare say this, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I shall deal with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, first. He is confusing the consent of the Crown with a privilege amendment. What he was referring to is the consent of the Crown and not the privilege amendment. If I may make that distinction I think the Committee does not need to have regard to the utterance of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he says that it is not a matter of money; it does not matter whether a proposal is being made that taxes should go up or down—not at all. But the House of Commons has different degrees of severity in which it asserts its privilege. Local taxation is in a lower category altogether than national taxation. Traditionally, the House of Commons has not objected to our discussing matters of local taxation, which is what this Bill is about. It is perfectly proper for us to send an amendment of this nature to the House of Commons, which can reject the amendment, if it wishes, and claim privilege. But the House of Commons will claim privilege for a Government amendment passed in this House. If privilege can be claimed for a Government amendment which perhaps increases taxation, or reduces it, it can also be claimed for an Opposition or a Private Member's amendment which goes to the House of Commons. The House of Commons will claim privilege for all of the amendments. However, having claimed privilege does not mean to say that what they have done is an intolerable breach of privilege. The noble Lord on the Front Bench is entirely entitled to move the amendment. If there was

1441
any doubt about that—that the House of Commons would consider this to be an intolerable breach of privilege—the Clerks would have brought it to the attention of the noble Lord and presumably he would not have moved it. But they have not done so. The amendment is on the Table; it is for us all to see; it has been vetted by the Clerks and nobody should therefore take exception to it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may just intervene. I do not think that I was mistaken at all. If the noble Lord, whose opinion I usually respect, will look up the section entitled "Parliament" in the book in which I have previously declared a modest interest, he will find that there is no difference whatever in the nature of privilege as between local taxation and national taxation in this respect. I think he will find that that is so. But we shall not continue this discussion, it is peripheral to the actual point. I simply intervened in reply to a statement by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, happens to have agreed with me and not with him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I do apologise. I want to answer the noble and learned Lord. He is entirely right that the edition of Halsbury bears his distinguished name; but the article to which he refers in Halsbury was, in fact, written by me.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: In that case it is a pity that the noble Lord is not more consistent.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The Act is very consistent. I have some anxiety because if the Committee follows the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, it will be diminishing its privileges. It is the duty of us all to uphold the privileges of this Chamber. If the noble and learned Lord's advice is followed then there will be a severe contraction of our privileges and that would be greatly detrimental to the privileges and freedom of this place. I ask the Committee to accept my view rather than his.
Lord Elton: We started this small debate with an utterance that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that the Committee might not take note of. I hope that the Committee takes note of my regret at having got it wrong in the first instance and my great illumination of what has transpired thereafter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on these subjects with very great respect. I am sure we are grateful to him for the degree of clarification which he has given us on the issue of privilege.
I do not propose to address myself in any detail to that question of privilege. However, the general effect on relations between the two Houses is very much dependent on the quantum of money involved. The other place is apt to be reasonably tolerant when we increase public expenditure, by way of amendment, by a moderate amount or when we impose liabilities on the citizen by moderate amounts. But it is apt to look very critically when proposals are made which will involve large increases, particularly large increases in taxation. The common sense attitude which this
1442
Chamber has adopted over a good many years has been to adopt lines of moderation where questions of public expenditure are directly involved. Relations between the two Houses have benefited because we have shown good sense in that respect and another place has shown, I must say, a very considerable degree of tolerance.
That brings me to my criticism of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The noble Lord did not mention the cost of his amendment. Indeed, he went further. He was at least suggesting —and I think if he looks at Hansard tomorrow he will see that this is the impression created—that because of the enormous saving which he thought there would be in collection costs it really would not net-cost the taxpayer anything. That is what he was suggesting. With respect, that is a very irresponsible suggestion. There seems to be little doubt that the nominal cost, at any rate, of an amendment of this sort, so the Minister has told us, is £500 million a year. To suggest that that considerable sum would be swallowed up in activities in collection—from quite a small minority of those liable for these charges, because the great majority still pay sensibly; I will not risk being criticised for saying happily—and to suggest that the collection costs of this particular impost were anywhere near £500 million is quite absurd. It is wrong for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to propose an amendment of this kind during which he declines to name any sum which he alleges it is going to cost.
If a change in matters affecting revenue or expenditure is being recommended to the Committee, it surely is the first condition that a fair and honest estimate should be given of what it will cost. Those of us who have been in government or parliamentary life know that most of the issues about which we are concerned have to be determined by the degree of cost. There are heaps of admirable improvements, which we should all like to see made, but which we do not make because the cost would be excessive. Equally, where there is an improvement which can be made at an economical level, or at a low price, then the arguments for making it are that much stronger and are apt to get wider support.
So we are left here with the position that the noble Lord is asking the Committee to approve a proposition which he declines to cost, but which there is every reason to believe would have a very high cost indeed. That seems to me a conclusive argument for rejecting it.
Earl Russell: I always listen with pleasure and with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I agree with him entirely that in any amendment before this Committee we must always consider the issue of cost. I think, though, that perhaps he may have slightly and inadvertently misled the Committee when he said that we do not take up issues of very large costs. The noble Lord will remember the amendments on child benefits which were carried here and in due course the will of this place, in effect, prevailed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. I said that we had a general practice of trying to

1443
confine increases in expenditure that we authorise to moderate figures. I did not say, and would not say, that we have not occasionally departed from that, and that we have not occasionally erred and have not finally therefore had to apologise. But we have not done it often, and it is not something to be recommended to be done frequently.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification, which in effect makes my point. On that occasion we prevail. As regards the cost of this amendment I do not think that the position is as the noble Lord described. I am sure that the noble Lord knows the figures offered by the Audit Commission: every £6 collected from 20 per cent. payers costs £15 to collect.
The noble Lord censured the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for not putting forward further figures. As I understand it those are the only specific figures available to us. They are from an entirely reputable source, which ought to command confidence on all sides of the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. It might help the noble Earl if he would respond to what was being considered. Like with like was not being considered by the Audit Commission. I agree with the noble Earl that it is a reputable organisation. The Audit Commission suggested that 20 per cent. charge payers contributed just £6 a year net to the public purse against collection costs of £15.
The calculation was based on a thoroughly misleading comparison. It looked at the amount they were asked to pay, about £71 on average, minus the amount added to their income support. There is no validity whatever in comparing this notional amount with the collection costs. The other thing is that the Audit Commission took into account the clawing back of income support in its calculations.
Earl Russell: Clearly I cannot respond instantly to that. I have not got the figures on which it was based, and so far as I know they have not been made public. If the Government would wish to make them public I am sure that we would consider them with the care they deserve.
Whether those figures were misleading must surely be a matter of opinion. In advancing an opinion here the Government are clearly an interested party. So far as I can see the Audit Commission is not an interested party. Its only interest was in finding out the truth of the matter. Therefore, until I can see detailed figures behind what the noble Baroness said, I shall continue to believe that what the Audit Commission said is likely to be the truth of the matter.
The Government are shortly going to want to persuade people that they have abandoned the poll tax and they have put their mistake right. If they are to do that they have to understand what mistake they have made. In this context it is worth remembering that, so far as I can discover, in the past 1,000 years there have been only two attempts to levy a tax that applied to everybody. I refer to the two poll taxes levied by King
1444
Richard II which, as the Committee knows, came to a bad end. The Government have been attempting to do something which has never previously succeeded, which does not seem to be succeeding on this occasion, and which is involving a large amount of effort and a large amount of the time of the courts, which have enough to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, asked—and I think he was asking everybody—for an admission that so long as it is the law people ought to pay. I first made that admission—and I think the noble Lord was in his place when I did so—on the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill 1988. I last made it about three weeks ago in a letter to my local paper. In return I asked the chairman of my council finance committee for a reciprocal admission. I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for the same reciprocal admission: that people cannot be required to pay what they have not got.
That is the hub of the whole argument. We have had a lot of debate in this House—I am sure that my noble kinsman remembers some of it well—on the adequacy of income support levels. The Family Welfare Association and the National Children's Home, to quote only two reputable bodies, have expressed a great deal of doubt about whether they are sufficient to get an adequate diet. That is the kind of situation in which we talk about people being unable to pay.
Reputable organisations send cases to us of people who say that the reason that they have not paid is that they cannot otherwise get their children enough to eat. I have spoken in this House so many times about the levels of finance available to students that I shall not occupy the Committee further with that now, but the same problem obtains there. If people do not have the money they cannot pay it, and you can wear yourself out trying to get it and it will not profit you anything.
Lord Monson: If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were proposing that the discounts for people on low incomes should be extended further up the income scale I would have no hesitation in supporting him. As I pointed out a year or two ago by way of illustration, a single person under 25 living in Oxford and earning as little as £94 a week would have to pay fully 10 per cent. of his or her gross income by way of poll tax, £9.40 a week, because he was not eligible for discount. I think that is shocking. However, this afternoon we are not talking about sums as great as £9.40 a week. We are talking about, on average, £1 or £1.20 a week, and that is a totally different matter. Surely the remedy for people in the extreme hardship cases that the noble Earl cited is not to absolve them from paying a pound or so a week out of the money they have left, but to raise the level of income support.
The purpose of the 20 per cent. rule, as I understand it—perhaps the hidden purpose—is not so much to raise revenue as to establish the principle of no representation without taxation. In other words, to discourage people from being tempted to vote for extravagant, high-spending local authorities, secure in the knowledge that even if they cast a vote for people with an extravagant programme and, in consequence,

1445
the community charge doubled or even trebled, they themselves would not have to pay a single penny out of their own pocket.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord cannot really have meant to say that he believed in the principle of no representation without taxation? Is he really saying that people below the level at which they pay income tax should not be able to vote? That is what his message seemed to say. Is that what the noble Lord really meant?
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness has fallen into the trap of forgetting about indirect taxation. Everybody pays indirect taxation. Even if they do not drive a car, drink or smoke they still pay VAT. Consequently at national level everybody pays taxation of some kind even if it is not direct taxation.
Contrary to the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the public purse would benefit, albeit indirectly rather than directly, by retention of the 20 per cent. rule—I am sorry that it does not apply to the new tax, but there we are—because it will make less probable the election of extravagant local authorities.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel that we are going slightly astray here in respect of this amendment. We must remember that income support was purposely increased to allow for, or to cover, a person's poll tax liability. We all dislike taxation, I must accept that, but one thing we must never forget is that there are those who can pay and will not pay, and they must not be put into the same bracket as those who cannot pay.
As regards those of us who are less well off, there still needs to be instilled some kind of discipline. If we accept this amendment as it is it will be the thin end of the wedge. Next they will ask for an additional discount on their rent bill, electricity bill and gas bill.
It sometimes happens that families on income support, with child benefit and various other social security benefits, instead of feeding the children, supply themselves with drink at the local pub. That is no excuse. I do not believe that this is the kind of amendment which should be supported. So far as I can gather, and I am sure that the figures given by my noble friend the Minister are correct, it will indeed cost about £500 million. That is not on.
5 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I totally understand why the Labour Party—and others—puts forward this amendment. It has always quite consistently opposed the poll tax. I also understand why it puts forward amendments which would cost quite considerable sums of public money. It has no responsibility for the construction of the national Budget. It is very easy to say that it believes this or that and the financial consequences do not matter. However, I should have been extremely unhappy had the Government shown any signs of accepting these amendments. We all know that the poll tax is being replaced by a better tax and remarkably quickly, if I may say so. I have been extremely impressed by the speed with which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment put together what is clearly a much
1446
better tax. It is a tax which, I venture to suggest, the Labour Party would be unlikely to repeal should it come to power.
It would be quite wrong for the present Government to betray their attention to public finance and to risk being accused of political opportunism —one might almost say electioneering—by giving a nice, easy concession to people in this last year of the poll tax. Therefore, I strongly support the Government in opposing this amendment as well as a number of others.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the Committee that this debate covers the macro-economics of the situation, but that it is not just about that. It is also about a large number of individuals who, we are told by the organisations whose job it is to assist them, are not just the can-pay-won't-pay brigade to which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred. It includes very many people who genuinely cannot pay. Those people will not only find themselves a year further on in debt should the 20 per cent. rule not be abolished, but will have in addition to the debt the distress of legal proceedings. I do not believe that they lightly take on that situation. It behoves us to consider them as well as the total financial situation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Audit Commission and I listened with interest to the Minister's comments on that topic. But it is not by any means the only organisation which vociferously advocates the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum. So do all the local authority organisations which have an interest in achieving a high rate of tax collection and income generation, as well as the professional organisations, including CIPFA, which say that the one measure which would most successfully smooth the introduction of the new tax would be the abolition of that rule.
When we come to finalise our views on this matter, I hope that as well as the overall costs or savings, we can take account of the individual positions of the people who are affected.
The Earl of Onslow: I arrived slightly late for this debate, for which I apologise. I should like to ask one question and one question only. It appears that to give up that 20 per cent. would cost £500 million. If the collection costs are larger than the giving-away costs, it ought to be given away; if we make a bob or two on it, we ought to collect the money, because the principles of representation without taxation, the accountability of local authorities, and not allowing people to get away with it do matter. However, if the cost of collecting the money—in view of people not paying, running away and being pursued—will be more than that £500 million, it seems sensible to cut one's losses and run.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to make a small point before we finally leave the record on this amendment. I thought it very sad that the noble Earl mentioned people who would take a benefit and then use it—I understood him to say—on drinking and smoking. I wondered if he was going to return to the

1447
old argument of coals in the bath and people not using their flats properly. Those people will always be with us, but they constitute a very small number. I know a lot of people who need benefits. I am not so fortunate as some Members. I live in a London borough where real life is lived and there is nothing remote about it. Some of the people who need benefits hesitate a long time before they try to obtain any benefit. They are proud people who do not want what they call charity. It would be very wrong for this House to leave on the record the impression that we are talking about people who take all the magnificent benefits and just squander them. I do not know how many drinks they would manage to buy with an extra £2 a week. I should think not many. It would be shameful to imply such a thing.
The noble Lord who has just spoken referred several times to the Labour Party. I have been a Member of this Chamber for 26 years. When I first came it was the custom and practice (which I hope will not change) to refer to the statements of "the Government" and "the Opposition". This Chamber is turning into an election arena in which any statements that come from this side of the Chamber come from the Labour Party. We are all Members of the Opposition. Let us return to some of the well-behaved habits that we used to have or we shall degenerate into the same state as the other place, which would be unfortunate.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee must bear in mind when considering these amendments that we are just eight weeks away from the beginning of a financial year, eight weeks before all these changes will have to be effected, whatever the changes are to be, wherever the money is to come from and however that is to be decided. It will be beyond the end of this month before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The cost of this amendment will be £500 million. The nature of those not paying is worth considering. There is a substantial can-pay-won't-pay brigade. I must say to the noble Lord opposite that, despite all his protestations, considerable numbers of the Parliamentary Labour Party have fuelled and supported that campaign. An even larger number of local Labour councillors have also supported the campaign of can-pay-won't-pay.
I have the names of 25 Parliamentary Labour Members of Parliament who gave their full support and backing to the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation's national demonstration, when they said in January 1990 that they sincerely hoped and believed that it would be the launching pad for mass non-payment of the poll tax. The noble Lord doth protest too much on this issue. I am afraid that his protestations are simply weakened in the face of all the evidence.
Income support has been uprated and despite all that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, in the current year precisely £1.31 has been paid into income support for single adults under 25; precisely £1.48 has been paid in for single adults over 25; and £2.62 for all couples. As I have already said in one intervention, for the people with £1.31 and couples with £2.62 that
1448
represents a community charge of £339 and includes all local authorities bar six—six Labour controlled authorities: Oxford, Basildon, Islington, Bristol, Haringey and Lambeth. For the single adults over 25, it includes all authorities bar two: Haringey and Lambeth. They have the wherewithal, pound for pound, penny for penny, to pay what they are required to pay and have an obligation to pay.
The only way in which this amendment could be accepted by the Committee would be for the Government to give them the money twice. It is simply not possible. That money either has to be clawed back or the money must be paid twice.
Already we know that those figures will be up-rated for the coming year to £1.40 for single adults under 25, £1.58 for those over 25 and £2.80 for couples. The average yield for people paying the 20 per cent. is only 80p. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was absolutely right when he referred to it being a relatively modest sum. No one on these Benches or on any Benches is pretending that it is not difficult for people at the bottom end of the income scale, but in couching this legislation the Government recognised that in full. Therefore by this method the very people about whom the noble Lord is concerned in the amendment are rebated up to the full 100 per cent. What is being suggested here is that taxpayers should fund 120 per cent. of that bill.
We must not forget those who do pay. They are the ones who are bearing the burden of those who will not pay. Let us think about those who do not pay. The can-pay-won't-pay brigade are among those who have the money from the taxpayer at large—not the Government—but choose not to use it for these purposes. The campaign for non-payment has been quite disgraceful. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred specifically to the £140 reduction scheme. It is worth pointing out to all Members of the Committee that when the reduction scheme was put into effect not one penny was clawed back from income support. The benefit of the reduction scheme was left within income support. Are Members of the Committee opposite suggesting that because it is rather difficult to pursue people who will not pay, and especially those who wilfully will not pay, we should simply admonish them, let them off the hook and then levy the bill on all those innocent people who do pay? What a principle! What about the burden of non-payment on those who do obey the law and do pay their dues?
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the Audit Commission's point and it is worth mentioning again. The Audit Commission suggested that in 1990 20 per cent. charge payers contributed £6 a year net to the public purse compared with collection costs of £15. Those figures are based on thoroughly misleading comparisons. The commission looked at the amount that they were asked to pay—about £71 on average —minus the amount added to their income support. There is no validity whatever in comparing this notional amount with the collection costs. The real comparison is between the actual amount paid, which is £71, and the collection costs. Incidentally, the collection costs were about £12.50 in 1991 and not £15. Therefore the net revenue was nearly £60. The

1449
fact is that it would cost about £440 million to increase the benefit rate to 100 per cent. in the current financial year, and about £500 million in the coming year. We cannot lightly take that amount and say that it will be paid by someone but not be specific. The Audit Commission comparisons assume that the amount added to income related benefits to help people meet the 20 per cent. contribution would be clawed back in 1992–93. That would cost benefit recipients about £680 million in lost income support. Is that really what the noble Lord is suggesting?
The noble Lord also referred to students. In 1990–91, the first year of the community charge, the student grant was increased from £2,155 to £2,685, an increase of 25 per cent., which included an increase in grant and the loan facility. The cost to a student—
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness must know, because we have exchanged words on this many times, that she has left out the loss of social security benefits.
Baroness Blatch: The increase of 25 per cent. was to take that into account, and of course it included the community charge. The bill to students for that charge is on average 80p per week.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked about the cost of pursuing non-payers. The principle of pursuing non payers is an important one. I have to tell him that the cost is £500 million to local authorities for the whole administration, from registration right through to pursuit of non-payment. That is the whole cost. There would be a significant benefit to taxpayers if the amendment were rejected, and a considerable loss to taxpayers if it were accepted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not make it clear that she supports the amendment but it does not surprise me that the Liberal Democrat Benches and Labour Benches have gathered forces on this issue. They have gathered forces on so many Bills in this Chamber that it is difficult to determine a distinction.
There are three options before the Committee if the amendment is accepted; first, that we must claw back income support to the tune of £500 million; secondly, that the Exchequer must take taxpayers' money and fund it to the tune of £500 million; or thirdly, and more perversely, that we allow local government the discretion to operate outside of spending limits to remit 20 per cent. of payment and to levy the cost on the already burdened local charge payer who does pay. Which is it to be? I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Will the noble Baroness tell me how much one penny on income tax brings in?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: That has nothing to do with the amendment. If the noble Lord is suggesting putting a penny on income tax in the eight weeks we have between now and the beginning of the financial year in order to fund this, I suggest that he brings forward an amendment at Report stage. We shall then deal with it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I was not suggesting that. I was merely trying to get the noble Baroness to make the comparison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In moving this amendment, I said that I was appealing to the Government and not just to those who have particular interest in poverty issues. I did so because this amendment is a good deal more rational and administratively sensible than has been generally recognised in the course of this debate. It departs so little from the Government's own policy that I am surprised that there should have been quite the ferocity—misplaced ferocity I may say—in debate that there has been.
Perhaps I may first put on one side the whole issue of the can-pay-won't-pay brigade. We are not in any way supporting the can-pay-won't-pay brigade. This amendment has nothing to do with any can-pay-won't-pay brigade. This amendment is concerned only with those on income support, the bottom 20 to 25 per cent. of our population. Anyone who thinks that arguments about deliberate non-payment of the poll tax have anything to do with the amendment cannot have read the amendment or listened to any of the arguments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is my noble friend aware that in my former constituency of Swindon Labour councillors courageously resisted all attempts by the can-pay-won't-pay brigade, very often at considerable risk to their persons? Does that not constitute on the part of those people a high regard for the law—and indeed for a law with which they themselves profoundly disagreed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend. The experience in Swindon that he describes has been repeated all over the country. Labour councillors who have supported laws with which they do not agree have been subject to physical and mental harassment from those who pursue the view that the way to deal with this matter is to disobey the law. That is not and never has been our view. However, that is not the subject of this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: On this issue some of us have taken almost the same position as the noble Lord. However, it has been my impression that the Labour Party has been muted in its assertion that the law should be obeyed, whereas some of its wings have been very vigorous in saying that it should not be obeyed. That is very much to the point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The impression that the noble Earl has gained is incorrect. I have been here throughout the Committee proceedings, and I have been faced with a number of Members opposite who have been here for part of those proceedings and who continue to repeat the totally untrue allegations that the Labour Party is in favour of breaking the law. I have been directly accused of it by a Minister of the Crown no less.
A noble Lord: Who?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who said that I knew more about law breaking than he did. That is the not the subject of the amendment. The amendment has nothing to do with those who can pay and will not pay. The amendment has to do with the poorest people in our society whose plight has already been recognised by the Government. The point that I tried to make at the beginning, which has not been understood by the Government, is that I am praising the Government.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to finish. I am praising the Government for recognising that 100 per cent. rebates from 1993 are right. I am praising the Government for saying that when they introduce those 100 per cent. rebates in 1993 they will not clawback the income support payments that have been made. Those are admirable things that the Government have done. All we are asking in the amendment is that the Government should pursue the logic of those decisions into 1992. We are doing that on humanitarian grounds because those are the people who have been suffering, and are suffering in addition from the increase in VAT. It is sensible also on administrative grounds in that, as the Audit Commission has said—this is the first time I have heard a government agency attacked with such ferocity from the Government Front Bench—that in 1990–91, although the net return was £6 a head, the cost of collection was £15 a head. It is a very expensive tax which produces a small net amount from the poorest people in our society.
I suggest that the right thing would be for those people to say to the Government, "Thank you for recognising the principle, and thank you for proposing to introduce it from 1993. Why not go that step further and introduce it from 1992?"
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down —I am grateful to him for giving way—I said that the Audit Commission took into account the clawing back of the income support. That is not part of the amendment and nor is it suggested that it should be. The noble Lord has skilfully not told the Committee how the provision will be funded. If we are to take the amendment seriously, just eight weeks from the beginning of the financial year, it is important that the Committee should know from where the money will come.
Finally, it is true that unwittingly—there are numerous examples all over the country—many people who would have paid have been tempted not to pay by the spurious mouthings —if I can put it that way—of the campaign for non-payment. The noble Lord ignores some real evidence that parliamentary and council Labour Party members have been active in that non-payment campaign.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This continued repetition of inaccurate, unworthy and irrelevant allegations against Labour councillors and Members of Parliament is becoming almost intolerable. It is clear that the vast majority of Labour councillors on councils all over the country who have supported the
1452
law have been subject to physical and mental harassment. My noble friend Lady Hollis has been in that position. She had to have police protection against such people, and yet we are the ones who are accused of being law-breakers.
I find it almost intolerable that we should be expected to listen to such a charge which Ministers, in their hearts, know is not true. The Labour Party does not and never has supported law-breaking. Labour Party members, spokesmen, councillors and Members of Parliament have been subjected to abuse for upholding the rule of law. If Ministers had been in that position, they would not be saying what they now are saying.
Let me return again, if I may, to the amendment. It has nothing to do with the matters Ministers have chosen to raise in argument. The amendment takes the principle which the Government have conceded, and it brings it forward one year for humanitarian and common sense reasons. The figures the Audit Commission gave were for collection costs in 1990–91. It is obvious from all we know about non-payment that those collection costs will have increased in 1991–92, and they will increase still further in 1992–93.
I suggest, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, rightly said, that there comes a point where the cost of collecting small amounts of money from a few people is no longer worth the candle—I believe that that was his phrase. It is unjust, it is irrational, and it conflicts with the Government's own recognition of the ultimate rightness of our case. I ask for the Committee's opinion on the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have come to a conclusion. I cannot continue to be interrupted by that kind of intervention.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 208) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Airedale, L.

Falkender, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Galpern, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dainton, L.

Jay, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Judd, L.

Diamond, L.

Kagan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kilbracken, L.

1453

Listowel, E.

Redesdale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Richard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Longford, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rochester, L.

McCarthy, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Serota, B.

McNair, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mulley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peston, L.

Walpole, L.

Phillips, B.

Warnock, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rea, L.

William of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Hylton-foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Beloff, L.

Kitchener, E.

Belstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blakenham, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Clasfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Manchester, D.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marlesford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monson, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Morris, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Moyne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cross, V.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Onslow, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Orkney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Digby, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erne, E.

Pender, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pennock, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Forte, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reading, M.

Gainsborough, E.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rodney, L.

Haddington, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Sandford, L.

L.

Selborne, E.

Hanson, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

1454

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stockton, E.

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Waddington, L.

[Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

White of of Hull, L.

Terrington, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Teviot, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Young, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
[Amendment No. 208A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Baroness Robson of Kiddingtonmoved Amendment No. 209:
Before Clause 102, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of student nurse
For the purposes of this Act, or any regulation made under any section of this Act, the term "student nurse" shall be taken to mean any person undertaking a full time course of nursing education which would enable such a person to qualify for registration under the terms of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.").
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and myself.
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that all nursing students are treated equally under the Local Government Finance Bill. The Committee will remember that under the community charge legislation regulations defining the term "student" distinguish between nursing students pursuing the Project 2000 course who are in receipt of a bursary and those students who are pursuing conventional nursing courses financed by means of a training allowance.
The incomes of both groups of nursing students are broadly similar, but under the community charge legislation, Project 2000 students pay 20 per cent. of the tax while other students pay 100 per cent. I am sure that the Committee will remember that during the passage of the Bill concerning the community charge, I moved a similar amendment to this one. With the help of noble Lords from all sides of the House it was passed. Sadly, it was overturned in the other place.
On Tuesday the Minister referred to a draft order which was put in the Library relating to the definition of "student". I made it my business to study the provisions. So far as I understand it, under them student nurses on the old type of training will be entitled to a rebate. That is how I read the provisions. I may be wrong, but I was satisfied and pleased about it.
However, another anomaly appears to be created in this Bill. I understand that the Government intend to exempt students if they occupy a dwelling inhabited only by students, and that student nurses pursuing the Project 2000 course of education will be included in such an exemption. The majority of nursing students outside Project 2000 will be excluded from that exemption. Thus, yet again we are creating an anomaly between the two types of student. I find this completely incomprehensible.

1455
When I raised the issue some years ago under the Bill dealing with the community charge, the progress of change in nursing education had not reached as far as it has today. It is now true that in Scotland and Wales all student nurses will take part in Project 2000 education by the end of 1992, but some will be pursuing their education as the former type of student nurse.
In England, Project 2000 is also well advanced, but not as advanced as in Scotland and Wales. It seems to me that with so few years to go, it would not be an enormous concession by the Government and I hope that the Minister will see her way to accepting that student nurses are student nurses, irrespective of the course they pursue. We are talking about a situation that will apply for only a few more years. It will not be long before every student nurse takes part in Project 2000. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
There is another reason too for accepting this amendment. Its provisions would aid the collection of the 20 per cent. of the tax to be collected in these circumstances. Collecting the tax from students in general will not be all that easy because exempt households are those that comprise students only. Local authorities will have to check carefully that there are no other people living in those houses. If we do not change the rules and allow nursing students who are not on Project 2000 to qualify for the exemption, local authority collection officers will have to differentiate between nursing students pursuing different types of nursing courses, even though they may study at the same institution and obtain the same qualification at the end of their studies. It will be especially difficult to levy the tax where nursing students on different courses are sharing the same accommodation. My amendment simplifies the position. However, I hope it will be accepted purely on the grounds of fairness. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee. I need not expatiate on her comprehensive introduction of the subject. Like the noble Baroness, I too was puzzled by this matter. I could not see any argument for differentiating between two classes of nurse. I shall say no more than that at the moment as I wish to discover what the rationale for that provision is. I have tried as hard as I can to discover that, but I have been unsuccessful. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say and I shall reserve any further comment until then.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on this side of the Chamber wish to associate ourselves with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I take the example of two student nurses, one of them bringing in £96 a week and the other £97 a week. One of them is treated as invisible and the other, though eligible for rebate, earns too much to obtain any rebate and therefore pays the full council tax bill. That situation cannot be fair. I hope the Minister will accept that there is an anomaly here that needs to be addressed.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Schedule 1 provides for student nurses and certain other trainees and apprentices to be eligible for personal discounts, so that they will not add to the personal element of the council tax bill. This recognises that such trainees are usually on a low income. Paragraph 4 of the schedule provides for full definitions of the people to get discounts to be set out in an order. We intend that the term student nurse will include all those on courses leading to registration under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, with the exception of nurses following the programme known as Project 2000.
Project 2000 is a pioneering nursing education scheme which integrates classroom theory and practical nursing experience more closely than traditional nursing training. I know I do not have to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, the qualifications for Project 2000 courses. There has been lengthy discussion in another place about the different treatment of what I will call traditional student nurses and Project 2000 student nurses. Let me make the position quite clear.
All student nurses (whether or not on Project 2000) will be eligible for a personal discount so that they will not be counted for the personal element of the tax. So if a student nurse lives with one parent, or a single landlord, the bill will still be only 75 per cent., the same as that for a single person household. If a student nurse lives alone, he or she will only be liable for the property element of the bill. But if there are two other adults in the household, then a full bill will apply whether or not the student nurse is living there. We shall have a system of rebates to help those on low incomes meet their bills. Project 2000 nurses, and other full-time students, will not generally be eligible for these rebates. For that reason we decided that student hostels, and houses or flats where all the adult residents are students, should be exempt from the tax. Traditional student nurses, if they are householders, may have difficulty meeting their bill. But they may be eligible for council tax rebates of up to 100 per cent. depending on their circumstances. For this reason they have not been included in the exemption arrangements which apply to students. I know the noble Baroness is inviting me to include them in the exemption arrangements.
In summary, the different treatment of the two groups of student nurses arises from their differing entitlements to benefit and other support. I should point out that they are paid differently. Project 2000 nurses are paid by the bursary method, while traditional nurses are salaried. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that if nurses come above the income level that qualifies for rebate, the amount of community charge they pay at present—or the amount of council tax as it will be in the coming year—will not be particularly burdensome on the small number of nurses affected. We are talking now about a residual number of nurses. Even if all of the nurses who fell into this category were to be counted, about 60 per cent. will be on Project 2000 soon. We are talking about the 40 per cent. who are left. Of that 40 per cent., many will be living in circumstances where

1457
they will not add to a tax bill. We are talking about that element of the 40 per cent. who may be living in a mixed household where they will have to pay a proportion of the tax that relates to property.
Our proposals for both groups are generous and will mean that most student nurses will pay considerably less under the council tax than they presently do under the community charge. We believe the amendment is not necessary and I hope the noble Baroness will feel considerable concessions have been made and she will not press the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Baroness replies, I wish to ask the Government what the cost of removing the anomaly would be. What would be the cost of accepting the provisions of the amendment that would iron out the anomaly?
The Minister has carefully explained the basis on which the anomaly has arisen. I suppose there is some sense in that; but it is a complicated matter. It would be complicated even for an expert to understand let alone nurses who are trying to understand other complications than the complications in this Bill. If the concession we are discussing would be fairly cheap to implement, cannot the Minister get rid of the complication and iron out this anomaly? That would give a sense of fairness to nurses and we would all be satisfied. At the moment, the nurses are not satisfied with the position. They find it difficult to understand why people within the same profession who are earning much the same incomes are charged different amounts of tax.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Baroness replies, I hope I may make a few points. I understand the logic behind the principle that nurses are moving from the status of employees to the status of students. Therefore a transitional period is involved in which the benefits are being adjusted accordingly. But given that we are discussing a diminishing number —this follows up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson —will the Minister tell us the cost of removing the anomaly? At what point in time, 1996 or 1997—I suspect it is the latter—will all nurses be on Project 2000? We are talking about a small number of nurses and a sharply reducing number. Consequently the cost of ironing out the anomaly would be a temporary one. I hope the Minister can help us on that matter.
Baroness Blatch: There are two responses to the two points that have been made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. It is impossible to make a definite announcement in this case. One has to know the specific living arrangements of a nurse. One has to know whether a nurse is living with parents and what kind of accommodation a nurse is living in. We are comparing all nurse households with all student households. A student living in a mixed household —that is of mixed adults and students—must meet a proportion of the property tax. We are specifically comparing all student households with all nurse households. The amendment seeks to apply the term "student nurse" to the traditionally trained nurses and to nurses belonging to the Project 2000 scheme.
1458
I have made the distinction between the way in which the two sets of nurses are paid. One set of nurses is paid by bursary and the other by salary. Nurses on the conventional, traditional courses are paid more than nurses on Project 2000 courses. I wonder what logic there is for differentiating between a nurse on a traditional nursing course and any other member of the population who is paid a similar salary but receives absolutely no concession whatever. Such a person may be a shop assistant, a cleaner or a junior clerk. Why should someone receive that extra help simply because he or she is a nurse?
The Government have recognised the special category of student nurses in relation to the new arrangements for Project 2000. I believe that it is a considerable concession. The noble Baroness asked me when those nurses would have progressed through the system. I am not able to give that information but of course I shall obtain the information and I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am not happy with the reply that the noble Baroness has given. I cannot see the logic in comparing student nurses with other professions. I have compared one group of student nurses with another category of student nurses. I cannot see why they should be treated differently. The difference in income between the two is minimal, if any. I had figures from the Royal College of Nursing but unfortunately I must have left them in the Library.
This type of anomaly creates a dreadful feeling of frustration and anger among the nurses who are treated differently from Project 2000 nurses. We all want to encourage the nursing profession. Nurses do a wonderful job for us and they all do the same job. I believe that they should be treated the same, irrespective of the type of course that they undertake.
The Minister did not refer at all to the problem of the collecting agency. How is the local authority to know what the position is if three students on Project 2000 courses and two students from the ordinary nursing education establishment share a house? That will be a student house in the case of the Project 2000 students, but I presume that it becomes a non-student house if it also houses two students from an ordinary nursing course. The system makes no sense.
Quite apart from being unfair and difficult to enforce the situation is impossible. I sincerely hope that Members of the Committee will support me on this occasion, just as they did in the case of the community charge. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give way. I am most grateful to her. I understand that there is a substantial difference between the position of nurses receiving a bursary under Project 2000 and nurses being paid salaries under the traditional nursing schemes. The figures can be presented in a number of ways, but the highest community charge in the country will produce a difference of only £9. The average difference is only £5

1459
a week. If there is a difference of more than £5 or £9 that difference is well matched to meeting payment of the community charge.
I understand all the arguments which the noble Baroness has put forward about nurses. However, they are not doing the same job. Project 2000, which does not use nurses in the traditional way, has been fought for for a very long time. Project 2000 is much more of a study-based course in which the students are used much less as general nurses on wards. That was very welcome to the nurses. One is not comparing like with like.
I understand that there is one presentation of the figures which makes them look very similar. However, in practice there is a difference, which matches the liability for payment of the community charge.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: Perhaps I may give the figures, which I have now found, and on which I based my statement. Employees who work a 37½ hour week receive £96.83 weekly income after tax and deductions. The Project 2000 student, who works only a 45-week term, receives £96 a week. The degree course student, who works a 30-week term, receives £94.83. Those figures have been provided by the Royal College of Nurses.
Baroness Blatch: I know that the noble Baroness intends to press the amendment and this will be my last intervention. I believe that we must come back to the point because my information is that those figures presented in that way do not produce the difference in practice. If I am wrong I shall apologise to the Committee, but I believe that I should write to both noble Baronesses following the debate.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: Irrespective of the difference, if there is any, I hope that the Committee will once again support an amendment designed to treat student nurses equally. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 209) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Airedale, L.

Falkender, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Galpern, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay, L.

1460

Jeger, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Kagan, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kennet, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Redesdale, L.

Listowel, E.

Richard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lockwood, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Longford, E.

Rochester, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mayhew, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stedman, B.

Milverton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Underhill, L.

Northbourne, L.

Walpole, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arran, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Onslow, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Pennock, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Erne, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Strathclyde, L.

L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

[Teller.]

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Terrington, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Knollys, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.3 p.m
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Social Security: Council Tax Benefit]:
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 212:

1461
Page 112, line 17, after ("liable") insert ("or jointly and severally liable under sections 6 or 9 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992").
The noble Baroness said: Let me seek to describe a scenario to the Committee with regard to the council tax. Let us consider a household with two adults. I do not refer to spouses but to mother and son, brother and sister, two friends or indeed two casual flat sharers. That household of two adults stands equal in the hierarchy of liability. In other words, they are joint owners or, more likely, co-tenants. They share joint and several liability for the bill. Only one of the two is the liable householder who receives the bill. Only one bill is sent out. Only the liable householder can claim a rebate on his income. The bill is based on two adults; they are jointly and severally liable for it; it is sent to only one of them who alone is eligible to claim rebate.
Several amendments relate to the problem of one adult with a low income living with a second adult, such as I have described, on a low income faced with a two-person bill. I accept that there is no easy way to deal with that problem of second adult poverty within the council tax Bill as structured without a more generous rebate scheme. Last week we put forward an amendment which provided that the bill should be split between those who were jointly and severally liable, with several bills being sent out. Each adult receiving part of the bill would be eligible for rebate on that part of the bill. We believed that it was a simple scheme and, so far as we could tell, broadly financially neutral. However, we had no support from Government Members opposite.
I pay credit to the Minister for seeking to come to terms with the problem. He has offered what I may call stepped discounts or benefits on the second income. It is a gallant response but it throws up a number of problems that we shall discuss in later amendments.
A third method which we shall discuss in Amendment No. 216 offers a passport approach. It has the merit of simplicity. A second person who is on one of those listed benefits will receive a rebate of 25 per cent. There is a crude approximation with incomes. That is a simple, straightforward method without some of the anomalies presented by the Minister's scheme.
The amendment proposes a fourth method of dealing with the problem of two adults who are not cohabiting, but who are equally liable for the bill, only one of them being the liable householder and where there is the problem of poverty in the household. It does not propose splitting the bill but suggests that where there is joint and several liability either of the jointly and severally liable parties should be eligible to claim rebate on the full bill. I refer to co-owners or co-tenants. That would leave in place the Government's assumption that there should be one bill and one rebate and that only one liable person may claim it. But it enables all the parties who are severally and jointly liable to choose among themselves who claims the rebate.
Let me cite a case history. A 50 year-old single parent mother whose income is just above rebate level lives with a 30 year-old physically disabled son on income support. They are joint tenants of the council
1462
flat but the bill is in her name. She would not be eligible for rebate. The amendment ensures that whichever of them was entitled to the higher rebate, including the son, could be and would be the claimant. I argue that where there is joint and several liability for the bill, irrespective of who is the liable householder, there should be joint and several liability for rebate. It would mean that where someone found themselves responsible for unpaid bills, he or she would be eligible as of right for backdated benefit. It overcomes some of the problems of backdating.
We all recognise that it is a complicated and technical problem. I am sorry to have to deal with technicalities in this way. However, we believe that there are better ways to deal with the problem than the stepped benefits process that the Minister offered on the second low-income adult income. We believe that splitting the bill in this way by allowing all parties to be jointly and severally liable for rebate, as well as for the bill would be a fairer, more equitable and simpler way forward. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): It is probably helpful if I intervene at this early stage. I may be the only one who needs to intervene because I do not believe that we are that far apart. I think it will help if I say that we shall get to the second adult rebate on one of the later amendments put forward by the noble Baroness. Perhaps we can deal at the moment with the sort of examples she is talking about: two people live in a house together who are not what would be defined in social security law as a couple. In other words it could be mother and son or brother and sister; it could be people sharing the house as perfectly equal tenants. Obviously we accept —this exists in other benefit fields in the case of housing benefit—that not all joint owners will be couples. One has to cater for the people who do simply share a property and are then jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax under Clause 6.
We consider that how benefit is to be awarded in these circumstances is a matter for regulations and not for the face of the Bill. We will continue, and we are having at the moment detailed discussions with the local authority associations.
I have to say that our initial preference is to follow the current housing benefit arrangements for the treatment of people who are jointly responsible for the payment of rent and to award benefit on the basis of apportioned liability. That would mean that in, for example, the case cited by the noble Baroness, where the mother was above income support levels and above the level of any council tax benefit, the son who was below income support levels would be entitled to claim what amounted to his share, but not the entire 100 per cent. One would have to say that as a matter of fact the likely apportionment between the two would be 50/50. He would be allowed to claim for his 50 per cent. of what was owing and his mother would be liable for the rest.
I think that this procedure would prevent the possibility of abuse where, for example, one joint tenant shared a house with exactly the same level of status as another joint tenant on a high income and

1463
was able to claim benefit for the full council tax liability without regard to the income of the other joint tenant. I think that the noble Baroness would accept that that would be the wrong way to go about it. Therefore, we shall continue our discussions with the local authority associations. Our preference is to follow the housing benefit arrangements, which I am sure the noble Baroness knows well. That will allow for fair treatment of all concerned and will prevent the abuse that I have suggested could possibly appear if one allowed one individual to pay 100 per cent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that helpful and conciliatory reply which we shall study. I take on board the problems with a group of jointly and severally liable tenants deciding among themselves who had the lowest income and who claimed on behalf of all of them in order to maximise rebates. I can understand that the Government might find that situation problematic. However, he gave an instance in response to my example of a mother and a physically disabled son. Can he explain the difference between the two examples and say how far away he is from apportioning the bill between the people and allowing each of those parties to claim rebate on their eligible portion? That provision was in a previous amendment that I moved, which would have met the same problem. From what the Minister has said it appears that he may be moving towards us, possibly through regulations. In that case we should be happy to encourage him in his discussions.
Lord Henley: I remember the previous amendment, but the case was somewhat different. We were talking about the practicality from the point of view of the local authority. We leave the joint and several liability and therefore both are liable. The authority can pursue both, although obviously it will act reasonably. I stressed that guidance will be issued to the authority. In terms of the benefit, which is something different—although, in the case of the council tax, housing benefit is something that they go through the local authority to claim rather than through social security—all we are saying is that they can claim what would be presumed to be their share of that bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall not press the matter. I thank the Minister for his reply but we shall wish to tease out some of its implications. I shall return to this issue, although not necessarily with this amendment, on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 213:
Page 112, line 18, after ("resident") insert ("including residents who are undertaking a full time course of education or are student nurses").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 214. We return to the subject that we discussed earlier and on which there was a close Division in Committee. I refer to the problem of students and of certain student
1464
nurses. Because students receive grants they are not eligible for benefits. They have been taken out of the social security system; housing benefit, council tax benefit or whatever. That is why, understandably and appropriately, government have made them invisible for the purposes of the council tax—in other words, they receive a 25 per cent. discount—and if they live in an all-student household the dwelling itself is exempt.
I wish to suggest that two problems arise from that approach and I shall welcome the Minister's response to them. First, the Bill assumes that all students, who by definition of being a student are debarred from benefit, receive a grant or, in the case of student nurses, a bursary. Many do so, but in my experience as a university teacher most have only a proportion of their grant made up by parents who are themselves financially struggling.
Other students are undertaking courses in respect of which grant is discretionary. One thinks of music students, some art and drama students and the like. Others are mature students for whom grant may also be discretionary, especially if they have already had a previous year of local authority support. However, even with the full grant and loan student grants are inadequate, as those of us in the university world know. However, students have also lost their rights to benefits. If they are receiving even less than the present full level of grant plus loan their position is parlous indeed. I hope that the Minister will help us in that area.
The second difficulty is that often a student may be liable for the council tax but without access to rebates to help to pay it. The problem that we are picking up—as we did in the previous amendment and others—is that we have a liable householder, which is one concept; joint and several liability, which is another concept; eligibility for discounts, which is another concept; and eligibility for rebates, which is another concept. All four dimensions are mapped in all kinds of fiendishly complicated ways. In the process anomalies are thrown up, some of which we are trying to explore in Committee.
Perhaps I may give two examples of the second difficulty; that of being liable for tax but without access to rebates to help pay it. I give the example of a husband who is a mature student and perhaps an owner-occupier. His wife is at home with small children. He is the householder and either the owner or the tenant. Because he is invisible the household faces a 75 per cent. bill. However, as he is the liable householder the bill comes to him. Can she, may she, will she, is she entitled to negotiate a rebate claim for both of them? I think that probably she can, but I hope that the Minister will tell us.
Perhaps I may give a second example of an owner-occupier or a tenant living on his own. He becomes a mature student. After a few months a brother moves in with him. Because the brother moves into his house that dwelling moves from being completely exempt to attracting a 75 per cent. bill. That is so because he remains invisible but the brother brings with him a 75 per cent. bill. The student is liable but cannot claim a rebate. The brother cannot claim

1465
because he is not liable at all and, therefore, he is not co-equal in the hierarchy of liability. Who then pays the bill and with what moneys does he do so?
The amendment would take care of such anomalies. They are increasingly frequent given the changes in higher education which students drop into and out of through the process of modularity and the problems of grant. The amendment would ensure that students have access to rebates when they inhabit a dwelling which attracts a council tax bill. The amendment applies equally to student nurses on Project 2000 who are treated as students and who, therefore, are exempted from the social security system but may also be excluded from rebates. We are arguing that it is only fair that if students enter the council tax system by paying part shares of the household bill they should also have entry into the rebate scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux supports the amendment and the similar Amendment, No. 214, standing in my name. As the noble Baroness has covered the ground so thoroughly I need say very little. The amendment overlaps with that on which we recently divided. I was sorry that the noble Baroness felt it necessary to divide the Committee because I had thought it possible between now and Report to reach an understanding on the anomaly in the case of the nurses. I do not understand why the Government seem to be so keen on disaffecting the most intelligent people in the country—the young students of the day. The nurses will be dismayed by the Government's conclusion as will their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. That is a large number of people.
The intelligentsia of the country—the university and polytechnic students—and their families are wondering why on earth the Government are making these extraordinary anomalies. They all say, "We simply cannot be bothered to puzzle this out. We are studying something else. We are not studying the Local Government Finance Bill." It is quite difficult to study in any event. They will ask why they should be put in different categories because of where they live. They will say that it is absurd.
Do Ministers really want all those intelligent people and their families to say what an ass the Government are to produce such anomalies? That is what will happen.
With student numbers growing, half will have to live in non-student accommodation. There will be no choice. There is not enough accommodation and because of that—not through choice—they must live in non-student accommodation and thereby find themselves penalised. What is the logic behind that? How many friends will the Government gather by imposing such a condition? I do not understand it.
What is more, it is flatly contrary to the Prime Minister's Citizen's Charter. One of the principal features of the charter is to increase choice. This provision achieves exactly the opposite. The Government will force students to remain in student accommodation because they cannot afford accommodation that is available elsewhere. How does that square with the Citizen's Charter?
1466
On the last occasion I asked that question it was not answered by the Minister—the same Minister who will reply to this debate. I should like to know specifically how the Minister reconciles this provision with the Citizen's Charter. I should very much like to know the answer to that question.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. I wish to raise only one additional point because the rest of the points have been made so clearly. Students include graduate students. Graduate students have been particularly badly treated by the benefit scheme which the Government have provided for them. Graduate students represent the cream of students. They are the people whom we expect to be the leaders of academia and elsewhere in the future. If we make life difficult for them, we shall impoverish ourselves seriously in the years to come.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to add one comment to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I was talking about the Bill to a trainee solicitor in my firm a couple of days ago. She comes from Scotland but trained in Birmingham. She started her training at the time of the introduction of the poll tax in Scotland. She described to me the problems that she had experienced and how her colleagues in Birmingham could not understand what all the fuss was about. That sort of confusion, anxiety and irritation with the Government—not to speak of hardship —could occur in just the way that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has pointed out.
Lord Henley: As the Committee will be well aware, the Government have taken steps to accommodate the particular needs of full-time students under the council tax. I simply do not accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seems to suggest, that the treatment of students in regard to this Bill and other provisions is in any way in conflict with the ideas behind the Citizen's Charter.
We all know that student halls of residence, hostels and dwellings where all the adult residents are students will be exempt from the council tax. I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, that a large number of students do not live in halls of residence, in college or whatever, but I believe that the noble Lord will accept that a large number of students, when they share houses and flats, tend to live as students all together. It must be stressed that those houses will be exempt from the council tax. The house will be invisible because it is entirely a student residence. Consequently, we can say—and for some reason the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seems to think that this is anti-student and attacking the future intelligentsia of the country—many students will not be liable to pay any tax at all.
The intention of Amendments Nos. 213 and 214, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke, is to give entitlement to council tax benefit to the minority of students who will remain liable to pay tax. I shall have to go back over old ground to remind the Committee that we do not believe that full-time students—and this has been argued many times both here and in another place—should generally look to

1467
social security benefits for support. The Government's view is that students should look to the educational maintenance system for support. However, exceptions are made for certain vulnerable groups, including students who are lone parents or disabled and student couples with dependent children, who are all entitled to claim income support and housing benefit. It is intended that they will be able to claim council tax benefit if they are liable to pay the tax.
Perhaps I may deal with the specific examples which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, cited. Her first example was that of a husband and wife where the husband was a student. Obviously, in that residence, the unit would only be liable for 75 per cent. tax. The noble Baroness asked whether the wife could claim all that. If she is not working and their income is below the appropriate income support level in whatever class they happen to be—whether disabled, non-disabled and so on—the wife could claim the full 75 per cent. tax.
In the second example, we have the student house, which is exempt, and the brother living on his own as a student. His brother moves in with him. I hope he charges him something but that is neither here nor there and we will leave that for another day. First, there is a house with no bill at all and then we have a house that goes from nothing to 75 per cent. for which, as the noble Baroness put it, the student brother, in that he is higher up in the hierarchy, will be liable. The student will then be able to claim the second adult rebate if the second adult in that house is on a low income.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the Minister not agree that that would only be the case if the second person's income was below £130? Between £100 and £130, the figure would be 7.5 per cent. In other words, the student would be faced with anything between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the bill for which he would still be unable to claim a rebate.
Lord Henley: If he is on a low income, he can claim the second adult rebate which will bring him down to 50 per cent. I will take advice on that. My understanding is that he could claim the second adult rebate if he was on a low income, that second adult rebate taking off the further 25 per cent.
The third case which the noble Baroness raised related to those students receiving less than their full grant. I go back to what I said earlier about it being the Government's view that students should look to the educational maintenance system for support. When we removed benefit entitlement from students, those changes were not made, as has been said before, in isolation. They coincided with the additional resources in the form of student loans and the access funds, which were made available through the educational maintenance system in 1990–91. In the current academic year the full year loan facility plus the grant is more than 30 per cent. higher than the grant in 1989–90 and, as I mentioned, there are also the access funds available to provide means for discretionary help to students who face particular financial difficulty. I cannot deal with those students
1468
whose parents do not make up the portion of grant to which they are entitled. It would be wrong that the social security system should provide the perverse incentive to parents not to pay their share of the grant.
Perhaps I can go back to the second adult rebate. It is only 25 per cent. if the second adult is on income support. There is no help if the second adult has an income of more than £130. That seems to be perfectly legitimate. If the second adult has an income greater than £130 a week, as with all our rules on non-dependency, even the noble Baroness cannot think it unreasonable that in that case he should pay something towards his student brother when living in his student brother's house.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I entirely accept that she and others may not agree with the Government's view on support for students and the lack of support in the social security benefit system. However, this is neither the time nor place to make changes to that. We are confident that it is right that it is the educational maintenance system to which they should look for support.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Whatever the noble Lord has done, he must agree that he has not dealt with the problems of graduate students. He will remember that graduate students cannot obtain loans and their whole position of maintenance is much more acute. They are a necessary and important group which will be and are in real difficulty.
Lord Henley: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I hope that she will accept that postgraduate awards are higher than those for undergraduates and cover the whole of the academic year. Obviously they will continue to be up-rated in the future. Again, those students have access to their own specific postgraduate access fund. The assessed figure is £6 million, which is proportionately higher than that available for undergraduates.
Lord Wise: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question, purely for clarification. I must admit to being rather bewildered by all the figures being bandied around. In the case of four students living together in one household and for some reason or other one no longer remains a student, I understand that the household then becomes liable for tax. Can the Minister say, assuming the fourth person remains living at the house, what rate of tax the remaining three students will have to pay?
Lord Henley: This was a point brought out at an earlier stage some days ago. I believe it was my noble kinsman who asked whether that one person coming in-a non-student coming into a house—would bring the plague with him. In fact on that occasion he would bring the liability to that house. Thereafter there would be a 75 per cent. liability for that house on the basis that there is one person in it and three who are to some extent invisible.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That case would impose some hardship on the students. If there were five living in a house and one left, and the remaining four could not find another student to replace the one who left, the four would have to pay the rent for the accommodation which could accommodate five. They would therefore be penalised.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord puts it in that way and says that they would have to pay the entire rent for the fifth if they could not find another student. They could always take on a non-student. Obviously, they would lose a smaller amount than paying the entire rent for the fifth person who had been lost.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Lord admits that they would lose.
Lord Henley: The Government have never denied the concept that if a house ceases to be an all-student house, then some liability will attach to that residence.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: It is a pity that students who have lots to do and ought to be concentrating on their work should have to concentrate on minutiae of this sort, but there it is.
I was not saying that the Government were attacking students; I never said that. I said that they were tending to antagonise—or I would add, after the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, bewilder them. I would not suggest that they were bamboozling or attacking them, but bewildering them and antagonising them by subjecting them to a long list which they do not understand. That is the position.
It is surely that kind of situation which the social charter is designed to eliminate. A matter of choice of course is essential. In fact the noble Lord says that he does not agree that the Bill diminishes choice. I have given one or two examples to indicate that it does. But actually making life clearer for the citizen seems to be entirely contrary to the effect—I would not say the purpose—of the Bill. It is making life more complicated and difficult. Simple adjustments would make it much easier and more in accordance with the Citizen's Charter. All I am asking is to make the legislation easier for the citizen to understand. Officials should be more easily understood. It is that for which I ask.
These small amendments which we bring to the notice of the Government were not considered or argued in another place. It is therefore fair that we raise them today. It is also fair to say that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister had not until recently reinforced and expanded the Citizen's Charter, as he did the other day. Now that he has brought it to our attention, it is legitimate for us to ask noble Lords on the Front Bench to match the legislation that is currently going through Parliament with the requirements of the Citizen's Charter. It is legitimate for the Committee to request the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite to justify their refusal of our amendments with reference to the Citizen's Charter.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is right to constantly mention the Citizen's Charter. We must agree—the
1470
noble Lord would be the first —that anything to do with the social security system is necessarily complicated and must always be fairly complicated. There are few benefits that are totally and utterly simple to understand. The few that there are tend to be universal benefits. The minute any benefit has to be income related, rules of a fairly complicated nature must be brought in.
In the Bill we have kept the rules as simple as possible in regard to the various discounts and rebates in the form of council tax benefits. I take the noble Lord's point that we should always try to make them as simple as possible. The amendments on this occasion do not bring any improvement of the sort the noble Lord is seeking so as to make life easier to understand for students or for that matter anyone else.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I can make one brief point. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seeking a greater simplicity in the system and asking that it should be more readily understandable, my mind went back to the many years in which I found myself in another place debating successive Finance Bills, and also the years when I was part of what was then the Department of Health and Social Security, debating social security legislation. One was always faced with the same conflict: one cannot be both simple and fair. Life is too complicated. One of the reasons we are debating the Bill is because in making the community charge simple it was widely felt not to be fair. Therefore the council tax, specifically the clauses and schedules which deal with the rebates, the discounts and the invisible taxpayers, will inevitably be more complicated because it is trying to be more fair. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, cannot have it both ways. There is a basic truth in the point and we must recognise that.
One should perhaps say that it is a new tax and in many respects it is based on new principles both in terms of the liability for the tax and the reliefs from it. The Citizen's Charter suggests that every effort should be made by all those in the public service—those who deal with the administration and the reliefs, who produce the literature which will be read and understood by the people —to make the position as clear and simple as possible.
We are talking about students and fairly intelligent citizens. They should be able to understand what the matter is about. To hope that one will achieve simplicity in administration and a kind of fairness between all the different interests, levels of income, different occupations and situations in which people find themselves, is, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, crying for the moon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord seems to suggest that there is a conflict between being simple and being fair. I agree with that. If he believes that the poll tax was simple then I cannot think where he has been for the past five years. That was a tax which succeeded in being both complex—incomprehensible sometimes—and unfair.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: That is not right. At least there was no question of trying to relate it to income

1471
above a certain level, which has been the burden of the complaint. Of course there were rebates. As it is now to be based partly on property and partly per head, it is an attempt to be fairer, but it is bound to make the issue more complicated. That is my only point. Therefore, the literature and the explanations will need to be that much clearer for people to be able to understand.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When we discussed this Bill at an earlier stage, my noble friend Lord Renfrew asked a question. I remember saying that I understood that there would be a certain amount of tax attaching to the property. I was told that I was wrong. I was told that if they were all students there would not be any council tax at all. It is right that something should have been attached to a property. It would have avoided all the complications of any one person bringing everything with him. If there had been a certain element attached to the property in the first instance, the matter would have been that much more simple. I am sure that the students who would benefit would not like that at all. I am sure that my view will be popular not with students, but with a great many other people.
How does one determine whether a person is a student? I ask that question because in my years spent sitting in magistrates' courts we constantly had cases of people who had enrolled themselves as students, but who had never attended a single course. They were usually working illegally, but they were officially and technically students. How will one ensure that such people are not receiving rebates and benefits when they are not bone fide students at all? That situation may be open to abuse. That is another reason why I would have liked to have seen some provision attached to the property.
The Earl of Onslow: Suddenly, joy has come! If my wife and I enrol as mature students shall we get away without paying any tax at all? That is a lovely idea.
Lord Henley: It is unlikely that my noble friend and his wife will be able to avoid tax. There will be a definition of "student" in the regulations. That definition has been discussed before, but I do not believe that now is the opportune moment to try to redefine "student" at this stage of the Bill.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raises a fair point. Normally one can ask the institution to certify that a person is a student. It will be able to say. The certification procedure for the student loan in some cases creates a document which I hope will be acceptable and which may save some of the administrative complexity.
Lord Henley: That is correct.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I sat down after the first four minutes. I did not realise that this matter would run in the useful way in which it has. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, posed a logical choice between being fair and being simple. I suggest to the Committee that we on this side have offered three other ways in which one can be both fair and simple.
1472
The Government have rejected all of those suggestions. I am now able to offer a fourth suggestion which follows up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. If a property was liable and a student was eligible for a 100 per cent. rebate, which is the position which my party advocates, then the problems would disappear and we would not be faced with the present dilemmas.
The reason why the matter is complicated is not that there is a complex balance between fair and being simple. The matter is complicated because as regards this tax the Benches Opposite have insisted on building a discount structure onto a rebate structure. That will then be cross-cut by a second person low income adult discount or benefit; also cross-cut are the non-dependent reductions. When all those factors are put into play there is a complexity which we on this side of the Committee argue is unnecessary. The important point is that these measures will deter people from getting help with their council tax to which they are entitled because the system will not be sufficiently transparent either to them or to the officers in city halls who are trying to administer it.
I apologise for pressing this matter. I am unsure of the position following the helpful and conciliatory response of the Minister. We still need clarification from him concerning the second adult rebate. I hope that he will give it to us. My understanding is that a student who is liable cannot claim the rebate because students as such cannot claim it. It is only the liable householder who can claim the rebate whether on his income or that of the second person. My understanding also is that students as such are ineligible to claim anything on anybody because they are outside the social security system. Can the Minister tell us how the illustration which he gave will work in practice?
I have some doubt about the matter, but I shall be delighted to learn that I am wrong. If I am right it means that at best the student's brother, whom I mentioned earlier, earning between £100 and £105 per week-in other words, about £2.50 per hour, which is extremely low paywould only bring with him a discount of 7.5 per cent. on a 75 per cent. bill. Therefore the liable student would still be facing a bill of 70 per cent. with the second person in the household having an income of only about £101 to £102. That is low pay by any standards. Perhaps the Minister can help on those points.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness knows quite well that there will be other people on pay levels which are well above income support, if they are single people, who will not be eligible for council tax benefit. As I have said, in the example she gave the 25 per cent. second adult rebate is available only if the second adult is on income support. I then said that there is no help at all if the second adult had an income of more than £130. I see nothing wrong with people whose income is above income support rates paying some council tax as we shall discuss in the next amendment when we start discussing the taper.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The whole point was that that person would not be paying the council tax. The person paying is the liable householder who will be the student.
Lord Henley: We have never denied that some students will be liable for council tax. If there is someone living with them who can make a contribution to the rent, council tax or whatever, it is perfectly fair to assume that there will be some contribution from that person.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister may wish to reflect on his answer. As I understand it, in the example I gave the student cannot have a second discount rebate because the student is already getting a discount and therefore outside the social security system. I hope that the Minister is right—in other words, that my reading of the Bill is incorrect. That would produce a more generous system for students in that situation. The Minister may wish to review his statement. Obviously, we must pursue this matter and return to it later. The Minister has not presented the position as it is understood on the face of the Bill. However, with the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 215:
Page 112, line 35, after ("percentage") insert (,"which shall not be greater than 10 per cent.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 215A. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that we are now moving on to the question of the taper. The amendment standing in my name gives a figure of 10 per cent. and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, gives a figure of 15 per cent.
The issue is that of the reduction of the rate at which council tax benefit is withdrawn as income rises. I hope that as part of his answer the Minister will be able to help us with the costs involved. Harking back to a debate earlier, I have no wish to fling money at a problem without being informed by the Minister—I am sure that he will be aware of what we are talking about.
I raise the issue because the question of the taper is of considerable concern to many groups of people. It is right that it should be debated and it is easier to do so on a specific figure. In line with other means-tested benefits the council tax benefit will be withdrawn as the income of the claimant rises above an applicable amount. The taper for the community charge benefit is 15 per cent. so that for every extra pound earned above the applicable amount, after tax and national insurance, the claimant loses 15 pence in community charge benefit. There are other tapers applying to other benefits. For housing benefit the taper is 65 per cent. and for family credit it is 70 per cent. The cumulative impact of the tapers where a household is receiving all three can equate to a marginal tax rate, if I can put it that way, of 96 pence in the pound. I say that so none of us shall be in any doubt as to the reality of the figures and how they impact on the individuals concerned.
1474
The Government have told us that along with the 100 per cent. rebates to be available under the council tax the taper will be raised to 20 per cent. I understand that the view from the Government is that that will have a broadly similar effect to the 15 per cent. taper on 80 per cent. rebates. That, of course, ignores the impact that the steeper taper will have on people whose income increases. The accumulative impact of the tapers for the various benefits is a major disincentive to low paid workers to take on more paid work. That is something that must be of concern. The impact of the taper also means that people who are on contributory benefits, such as pensions, can find that an increase in their benefit is practically wiped out by a reduction in other means-tested benefits.
This amendment is supported by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which gives an example of a client whose occupational pension was increased by £2 a month. As a result her community charge benefit and housing benefit were reduced by 40 pence a week; that is, £2 a month increase, 40 pence a week reduction. The amendment is also supported by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which is concerned that disabled people incur additional costs because of their disability and may have less disposable income than similar households on the same level of income but without a disabled person. A taper based on an excess income figure takes no account of that expenditure. So the question arises of increased hardship for disabled people.
This is a significant issue for people who are disabled. Perhaps I could beg their pardon, because I do not like to refer to them as "the disabled" or "disabled people"—they are people who are also disabled. They are likely to be on lower earnings than other households.
RADAR also gives an example of a pensioner with a poll tax of £8 a week; on a pension of £58.50, her excess income was £5.10p. These are 1991/92 figures. Her current community charge benefit is £5.64—80 per cent. of the charge, less 15 pence in the pound of the so-called excess income. The proposed council tax benefit with a 20 pence taper and 100 per cent. of the charge would be £6.40p. However, if the taper remained at 15 pence the council tax benefit would be £7.24p. If the taper went to 20 pence at the same time as the 100 per cent. rebate she would see a gain of 76 pence. If the taper remained at 15 per cent. she would gain £1.60p. In effect, the increase in taper is losing her the additional benefit of 84 pence a week. If the taper was at 10 per cent. the benefit would be £7.49p.
As I said, the Government have indicated that a starting point of 100 per cent. benefit with 20 per cent. taper will leave people more or less where they were when the figures were 80 per cent. with a 15 per cent. taper. That may be so, but the reduction of the taper to 10 per cent., as in my amendment, would be more consistent with anxieties that I am sure we all share about incentives to work. None of us wants to be associated with a system which is a disincentive to people to work, for social reasons as well as economic reasons. For that reason and on that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 215A which is grouped with Amendment No. 215 and therefore, in that sense, speak to both amendments. We on these Benches would support a taper of 15 per cent. now and 10 per cent. as soon as resources permit. So in spirit we are behind the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Given that the single person discount will cost some £780 million—which is throwing money at a problem which does not exist and certainly at many people who have no financial need for it—and given that the best figures we have from the DSS of improving the taper, or reducing its harshness by reducing it from 20 pence in the pound to 15 pence in the pound, it is estimated to cost some £60 million as opposed to the single person discount of £780 million, then even a modest targetting of discounts to those who need them would release more than enough resources within the DoE's own allocation for revenue support grant to cover a more generous rebate scheme. So it is clear that we are not actually talking about cost because that amount in the discount scheme could be recycled. The party opposite is throwing £780 million, through a discount scheme, at people many of whom are so affluent that they would never need access to any social security system. That, indeed, is wasting public money.
Why are we supporting this amendment? First, it would increase help to those who most need it. Secondly, in the process it would reduce the need to turn to the complexity of the interlocking, second adult, low income deductions, and the rest of the fiendishly complicated structure that Ministers opposite have devised. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said it would soften the cliffs of the poverty trap.
On the first point, that it would help those who most need it, as the noble Baroness has already said, the Government are abolishing the minimum 20 per cent. contribution and while not clawing it back through deductions from social security they are clawing part of it back immediately in a more severe taper on benefit. Instead of losing 15 pence for every pound over the basic needs allowance where income rises, 20 pence in benefit will be lost.
We obviously welcome the fact that income support and associated benefits will not be clawed back. However, there has been considerable research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and from the professional groups that have researched this matter to suggest that income support since 1985 has not risen properly to cover the full costs of the poll tax and its associated costs, including the water rates; and that the updating of 1985, projected forward to 1988, will result in people getting some 50 pence less than they otherwise would. We have also seen that the flat rate reduction in council tax will be paid for by a rise in VAT, which will cost those in the lowest groups another 52 pence or so. It will take a good year before that is recycled through the RPI into benefit rate. We see water rates rising by 25 per cent. or more a year and they are not within the Rossi Index. So for all of these reasons—
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness will take that back she will find that water is now included in the revised Rossi that was used in our most recent uprating.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is now in Rossi. It has not been since 1988. The point I am trying to establish is that by keeping the basic 20 per cent. locked in and not clawing it back through social security is not a generous addition. It merely restores benefits to the level they would have been back in 1987 and 1988 but for the changes that the Government have since made. That is the point we are trying to establish. We welcome the Minister's de facto recognition of this, and all credit to his department for recognising that the figures need to be floated up to this level to restore them to their proper values.
In that case, why increase the taper from 15p in the pound to 20p, which immediately makes the rebate scheme less generous and makes it run out, as the noble Baroness said, at a lower income level? The implication of that is that you are funding the rebate scheme within the rebate scheme. In other words, the barely poor are losing benefit to help the very poor, while the better off among us contribute very little indeed.
The first point is that of justice within those seeking benefit. The second point is that a more generous rebate scheme would float people off—if I can use a phrase from the days of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle—some of the interlocking complexities of the second adult low income discount. That would save huge administrative problems for the local authorities, and the need for each individual householder to possess their own personal calculator or computer in order to determine under which stream or thread of benefit they would be better off.
Thirdly, is the cliffs of the poverty trap. If you take a low-paid family, a tenant with children getting family credit, add the withdrawal costs of taper of family credit, the withdrawal costs of taper of council tax, the withdrawal costs of taper of housing benefit, let alone national insurance contributions and income tax, and that low-paid family is paying a marginal tax rate of 97p in the pound. I find it shameful that the better off among us need ample pay rises and a 40 per cent. maximum tax regime in order to work harder, and the poorest among us need benefits which have fallen behind earnings in real terms and a tax regime of 97p in the pound in order to encourage them into work.
In a recent Parliamentary Answer in November 1991—and I should like the Minister's comment on this—some 50,000 families with children faced a marginal tax rate under these interlocking benefits of over 90p in the pound. As the noble Baroness said, this is a major disincentive to work, and it sucks such families down into the swamp of poverty and dependency on means-tested benefits. It does not need to be like this. We want pathways out of poverty, and this amendment is a modest start.
Earl Russell: I should like to ask my noble kinsman to clarify a little the effect of the current changes in the definition of part-time work from 24 to 16 hours on the problem of council tax taper. This is something for which I know there is transitional protection. One of the key points about this is that one of the effects of the change will be to take a number of people out of income support and on to family credit and housing benefit. The income may superficially increase. That could create a steeper council tax taper. I should like to know whether account will be taken in that of the loss of help with mortgages for those who come off income support, which is one of the real points of hardship in that change. If that is not taken into account in the calculation of income for the council tax taper, then it is going to bite much more severely than it is meant to.
In general the Conservative Party has always been ready to talk about incentives. It is aware of them at the top of the scale, and it is aware of them—sometimes perhaps perversely—at the bottom of the scale. But if the point is valid it is valid in between. I should have thought that it was particularly valid for people stuck on low wages, wondering whether there is ever going to be any chance of bettering themselves, and I would not have thought it would be a good idea to give them the message in that way.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked for some softening of the cliffs of the so-called poverty trap, and talked about the high deduction rates that we have always admitted can happen at the top up to, as the noble Baroness put it, some 97 per cent. That is a bit rich from the noble Baroness, whose next amendment, Amendment No. 216, actually creates a poverty trap where some people would be worse off for each pound that they received. We shall get to that amendment at some time after dinner and the noble Baroness can discuss it then. But I can assure her that there will be examples where people will be worse off for each pound that they receive. In this, as with all other benefits, there might be high deduction rates—I do not call them high tax deduction rates—but for every pound they receive, people will at least be better off.
The other point I should like to deal with before I come to the amendment itself was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I thought she would have known this as she was moving an amendment on these matters. She asked just how much such an amendment as hers would cost, suggesting a taper of 10 per cent., and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, of some 15 per cent. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has tabled a Question for Written Answer on this subject. I must apologise for the fact that it has not yet been answered, but I presume that it would not be in breach of any parliamentary privilege if I announced the figures that I shall be giving in the Written Answer. Current expenditure would be some £170 million higher if we took Lady Hamwee's amendment, and some £60 million higher if we took the 15 per cent. taper that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggests. Claimants for rebates will be entitled to rebates of up
1478
to 100 per cent. maximum benefit, which will also help those taxpayers with incomes above income support levels.
At this point I should deal briefly with the question of the disabled. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to this, and said that they would be far worse off. One must always remember the generous system of premiums in the income support system. That means that those who are disabled and on low incomes and in receipt of those premiums will be entitled to a 100 per cent. council tax benefit at a much higher income than, say, a single person or the couple, just as the couple with children will be entitled to the 100 per cent. council tax benefit at a much higher income according to the number and age of their children than the couple without children.
All claimants, including those who will not have to pay any council tax, will gain from the Government's decision not to claw-back from 1993 any of the amounts included to help pay the 20 per cent. contribution towards the community charge. This decision will mean that, from April 1993, income-related benefits will, at 1992–93 prices, be some £680 million more than would have been required merely to compensate for inflation since 1989. This is a significant sum by any standards. It is clear evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to maintain, and indeed improve, the position of those on low incomes and on income support.
The benefit taper needs to be considered in this context, and taking all these decisions together the higher taper means that, under the council tax, benefit entitlement will extend to people with broadly the same levels of income as were helped by the community charge benefit.
As I have said, if we took the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it would have entailed higher expenditure of some £170 million, and if it was the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, some extra £60 million.
The Government considered the structure of the new rebate system very carefully. Like other income-related benefits, council tax benefit will have to be reduced as income rises above income support levels. It is common ground that when income rises above income support levels benefit has to be reduced gradually. To stop benefit precipitately would have an adverse effect on work incentives. The benefit taper therefore ensures that an increase in income above income support levels does not lead to an equivalent cut in council tax benefit. On the Government's proposals, if the claimant's weekly income is £10 in excess of his or her applicable amount, that will lead to a reduction in the level of council tax benefit of only £2 a week. Under the amendments before the Committee, the excess income would be reduced by £1.50 or £1 a week.
In choosing the benefit taper at 20 per cent., I should point out that that is the level that existed under the rebate scheme. The Government have struck a balance between providing greater help for people with income at or above income support levels,

1479
ensuring that they will receive even more substantial help under the new benefits system, while those with higher incomes receive less.
My noble kinsman asked a question about the coming change in income support regulations and change in part-time work from 24 hours to 16. My understanding is that this would have no effect on council tax benefit. My noble friend then asked a question about the change in entitlement to help with mortgage payments as one moved from income support to family credit. That goes slightly wide of the amendment with which we are dealing at the moment. Certainly, it is something that we shall deal with when those regulations come before this Chamber. If I am able to do so, I shall write to my noble kinsman before then on that point.
We have always accepted that the taper can produce high deduction rates on occasions. I admit that that must always be the case. But it must always be the case that people will still be better off. There is no benefit trap at all. The noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 216, which, as I said, we shall come to later, would impose such a poverty trap and leave people worse off.
With those considerations in mind and bearing in mind the cost of the two amendments, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will confirm that I heard him correctly when he said that there would be no benefit trap at all.
Lord Henley: I can envisage deduction rates, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put it, of some 97 per cent. I cannot at the moment envisage what is suggested. It might be possible, and I should certainly have to look at it, but there is not the gross poverty trap that we shall see when we reach Amendment No. 216. It is possible. Certainly, I shall be prepared to write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is possible that there might be some extreme cases when someone could be worse off. I cannot envisage any, but if it were the case with a 20 per cent. taper, I suspect that the same could be true of lower tapers. I personally do not believe that it could happen, but if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I knew that the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, had not received a formal answer and I hoped in a tactful way to extract one. It is helpful to the House to have had it.
I note what the Minister said. I must make one point, however. He said that the deduction rates were not high tax deduction rates. In a technical sense, they may not be, but I believe that the people affected by them regard them in precisely that way. I shall study what the Minister said. I thank him for his answer and look forward to his letter, if one is to come and he has considered further the last point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 215A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Administration Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on re-commitment) accordingly.
[The BARONESS LOCKWOOD in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Appeal from Commissioners on point of law]:
The Lord Chancellormoved the following amendment:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("under section 23 above")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is a drafting correction. Clause 24(1) represents Section 14(1) of the Social Security Act 1980. That subsection simply refers to an appeal on a question of law "from any decision of a Commissioner." There is no reference to the decision being under any particular statutory provision. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to make the subsection tally with the original enactment and delete the unnecessary phrase "under Section 23 above".
Perhaps I should add, for the convenience of the Committee, that this amendment and the amendments relating to the other social security consolidation Bills that follow immediately after this Bill are amendments that have been seen by, and have the approval of, the Chairman of the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: This is obviously a very useful amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with an amendment.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [H.L.]
7.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on re-commitment) accordingly.

1481
[The BARONESS LOCKWOOD in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 ["Earnings" and "earner"]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Part of this Act and of Parts II to V below other than those of Schedule 8")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 19. These are drafting amendments. Clause 3(2) reproduces Section 3(2) of the Social Security Act 1975. But the reference in Clause 3(2) to "this Act" covers many provisions that do not derive from the 1975 Act. Although the two sections are absolutely the same in wording the reference to "this Act" in the 1975 Act is to a much smaller provision than it is when incorporated in this Bill. Amendment No. 1 accordingly limits this provision to the provisions that need to be covered by it. Amendment No. 19 makes a similar correction in Clause 112(1). The subsection derives from Section 18(1) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977. That subsection refers back to the 1975 Act. In addition to introducing the correct limitation into Clause 112(1), the amendment removes a superfluous reference to the Social Security Administration Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: In supporting this amendment I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the speed of his movements.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Calculation of secondary Class 1 contributions]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 10, leave out ("£84.99") and insert ("£89.99")
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3 to 18 and 20 to 25. These amendments all have exactly the same purpose and basis. Since the Bill was introduced, numerous sums specified in various provisions of the social security legislation have been altered by statutory instrument under the powers conferred by the original legislation. The amendments make the corresponding alterations in the sums specified in the Bill. I regret to say that there are a good many of them which is why there are so many amendments. At the moment I think that I can move only Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5:
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("£85.00 to £129.99") and insert ("£90.00 to £134.99")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("£130.00 to £184.99") and insert ("£135.00 to £189.99")
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("£185.00") and insert ("£190.00")
The noble and learned Lord said: I move these amendments en bloc. I have already given the explanation.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
1482
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Liability for Class 2 contributions]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("£5.15") and insert ("£5.35")
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("£2,900") and insert ("£3,030")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the same reason, I move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Class 3 contributions]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, leave out line 48 and insert ("£5.25")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the reason already given, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Class 4 contributions recoverable under the Income Tax Acts]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("£5,900") and insert ("£6,120")
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("£20,280") and insert ("£21,060")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the same reason I have given before, I move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Class 4 contributions recoverable under regulations]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 11 to 13:
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("£5,900") and insert ("£6,120")
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("£5,900") and insert ("£6,120")
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("£20,280") and insert ("£21,060")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the same reason, I move Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Category A retirement pension]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 38, line 33, leave out ("£52.00") and insert ("£54.15")
Page 38, line 35, leave out ("£49.90") and insert ("£51.95")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the same reason, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Beneficary's dependent children]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 69, line 43, leave out ("£110") and insert ("£115")

1483
Page 70, line 1, leave out ("£14") and insert ("£15")
Page 70, line 2, leave out ("£110") and insert ("£115")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the same reason, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Certain sums to be earnings]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 84, line 17, leave out ("this Act and the Administration") and insert ("Parts I to V of this")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is a little different. The reason for it is the same as I gave in respect of Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 113 to 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Trade disputes]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 95, line 15, leave out ("£21.00") and insert ("£22.50")

Part I

Contributory Periodical Benefits

Description of benefit

Weekly rate

1. Unemployment benefit

£43·10

2. Sickness benefit

£41·20

3. Invalidity allowance

(a) higher rate

£11·55

(b) middle rate

£7·20

(c) lower rate

£3·60

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 34(3))

4. Maternity allowance

£42·25

5. Category B retirement pension where section 50(1)(a)(i) applies

£32·55

6. Child's special allowance

£10·85

Part III

Non-contributory Periodical Benefits

Description of benefit

Weekly rate

1. Attendance allowance

(a) higher rate

£43·35

(b) lower rate

£28·95

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 65(3))

2. Severe disablement allowance

£32·55

3. Age related addition

(a) higher rate

£11·55

(b) middle rate

£7·20

(c) lower rate

£3·60

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 69(1))

4. Invalid care allowance

£32·55

5. Guardian's allowance

£10·85

6. Category C retirement pension

(a) lower rate

£19·45

(b) higher rate

£32·55

The noble and learned Lord said: We are now back to the reasons for amendments to figures in the legislation since the Bill was drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 127 to 156 agreed to.
Clause 157 [Rate of payment]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 118, line 6, leave out ("£185") and insert ("£190")
Page 118, line 7, leave out ("£43.50") and insert ("£45.30")
The noble and learned Lord said: For the same reasons, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 157, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Rates of benefit etc.]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 150, line 12, leave out Schedule 4 and insert£

Schedule 4 Rates of Benefits, etc.
Note: This Schedule is subject to alteration by orders made by the Department under section 132 of the Administration Act.

Description of benefit

Weekly rate

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 78(5))

7. Category D retirement pension

The higher rate for Category C retirement pensions under paragraph 6 above

8. Age addition (to a pension of any category, and otherwise under section 79)

£0·25

Part IV

Increases for Dependants

Benefit to which increase applies

Increase for qualifying child

Increase for adult dependant

(1)

(2)

(3)

£

£

1. Unemployment or sickness benefit—

(a) unemployment benefit, where the beneficiary is under pensionable age

—

26·60

(b) unemployment benefit, where the beneficiary is over pensionable age

10·85

32·55

(c) sickness benefit, where the beneficiary is under pensionable age

—

25·50

(d) sickness benefit, where the beneficiary is over pensionable age

10·85

31·20

2. Invalidity pension

10·85

32·55

3. Maternity allowance

—

25·50

4. Widowed mother's allowance

10·85

—

5. Category A or B retirement pension

10·85

32·55

6. Category C retirement pension

10·85

19·45

7. Child's special allowance

10·85

—

8. Severe disablement allowance

10·85

19·45

9. Invalid care allowance

10·85

19·45

Part V

Rate of Industrial Injuries Benefit

Description of benefit, etc.

Rate

1. Disablement pension (weekly rates)

For the several degrees of disablement set out in

column (1) of the following Table, the respective amounts in that Table, using—

(a) column (2) for any period during which the beneficiary is over the age of 18 or is entitled to an increase of benefit in respect of a child or adult dependant;

(b) column (3) for any period during which the beneficiary is not over the age of 18 and not so entitled;

Table

Degree of disablement

Amount

(1)

(2)

(3)

Per cent.

£

£

100

88·40

54·15

90

79·56

48·74

80

70·72

43·32

70

61·88

37·91

60

53·04

32·49

50

44·20

27·08

40

35·36

21·66

30

26·52

16·25

20

17·68

10·83

Description of benefit, etc.

Rate

2. Maximum increase of weekly rate of disablement pension where constant attendance needed

(a) except in cases of exceptionally severe disablement

£35·40

(b) in any case of exceptionally severe disablement

£70·80

3. Increase of weekly rate of disablement pension (exceptionally severe disablement)

£35·40

4. Maximum of aggregate of weekly benefit payable for successive accidents

(a) for any period which the beneficiary is over the age of 18 or is entitied to an increase in benefit in respect of a child or adult dependant

£88·40

(b) for any period during which the beneficiary is not over the age of 18 and not so entitied

£54·15

5. Unemployability supplement under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7

£54·15

6. Increase under paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 of weekly rate of unemployability supplement

(a) if on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 35 or if that date fell before 5th July 1948

£11.55

(b) if head (a) above does not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 40 and he had not attained pensionable age before 6th April 1979

£11.55

(c) if heads (a) and (b) above do not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 45

£7.20

(d) if heads (a),(b) and (c) above do not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 50 and had not attained pensionable age before 6th April 1979

£7.20

(e) in any other case

£3.60

7, Increase under paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 of weekly rate of disablement pension

£10.85

8. Increase under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 of weekly rate of disablement pension

£32.55

9. Maximum disablement gratuity under paragraph 9 of Schedule 7

£5,870.00

10. Widow's pension (weekly rates)

(a) initial rate

£57.65

(b) higher permanent rate

£54.15

(c) lower permanent rate 30 per cent. of the first sum specified in section 44(4) (Category A basic retirement pension)

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with paragraph 16 of schedule 7)

11. Widower's pension (weekly rate)

£54.15

12. Weekly rate of allowance in respect of children under paragraph 18 of schedule 7

In respect of each qualifying chlid

£10.85.")

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment, which goes on for some pages, is for the same reasons: that the figures have been updated since the Bill was drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Industrial injuries and diseases (Old Cases)]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 174, line 47, leave out ("£31.25") and insert ("£32.55")
Page 178, line 41, leave out ("£31.25") and insert ("£32.55").
1488
The noble and learned Lord said: There are two amendments to the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a

1489
manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
7.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on re-commitment) accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Appeal from Commissioners on point of law]:
The Lord Chancellormoved the following amendment:
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("under section 21 above").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment reflects the amendment made to the analogous Great Britain Bill. It makes Clause 22 more consistent with the provisions in the existing law from which it is derived. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
7.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 ["Earnings" and "earner"]
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Part of this Act and of Parts II to V other than those of Schedule 8")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 19 are required for the same reasons as those to the analogous Great Britain Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1490
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Calculation of secondary Class 1 contributions]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("£84.99") and insert ("£89.99")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the first of the amendments reflecting the updating of the figures in the legislation since the Bill was drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("£85.00 to £129.99") and insert ("£90.00 to £134.99")
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("£130.00 to £184.99") and insert ("£135.00 to £189.99")
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("£185.00") and insert ("£190.00")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Liability for Class 2 contributions]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("£5.15") and insert ("£5.35")
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("£2,900") and insert ("£3,030")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Class 3 contributions]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 48, leave out ("£5.05") and insert ("£5.25")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Class 4 contributions recoverable under the Income Tax Acts]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("£5,900") and insert ("£6,120")
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("£20,280") and insert ("£1,060")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Class 4 contributions recoverable under regulations]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 11 to 13:
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("£5,900") and insert ("£6,120")
Page 13, line 44, leave out ("£5,900") and insert ("£6,120")
Page 13, line 44, leave out ("£20,280") and insert ("£21,060")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Category A retirement pension]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 37, line 42, leave out ("£52.00") and insert ("£54.15")

1491
Page 37, line 44, leave out ("£49.90") and insert ("£51.95")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Beneficiary's dependent children]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 68, line 27, leave out ("£110") and insert ("£115")
Page 68, line 29, leave out ("£14") and insert ("£15")
Page 68, line 30, leave out ("£110") and insert ("£115")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Certain sums to be earnings]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 83, line 12, leave out ("this Act and the Administration") and insert ("Parts I to V of this")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is made for the same reason as I gave in respect of Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 113 to 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Trade disputes]:

Part I

Contributory Periodical Benefits

Description of benefit

Weekly rate

1. Unemployment benefit

£43·10

2. Sickness benefit

£41·50

3. Invalidity allowance

(a) higher rate

£11·55

(b) middle rate

£7·20

(c) lower rate

£3·60

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 34(3))

4. Maternity allowance

£42·25

5. Category B retirement pension where section 50(1)(a)(i) applies

£32·55

6. Child's special allowance

£10·85

Part III

Non-contributory Periodical Benefits

Description of benefit

Weekly rate

1. Attendance allowance

(a) higher rate

£43·35

(b) lower rate

£28·95

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 65(3))

2. Severe disablement allowance

£32·55

3. Age related addition

(a) higher rate

£11·55

(b) middle rate

£7·20

(c) lower rate

£3·60

(the appropriate ratebeing determined in accordance with section 69(1))

4. Invalid care allowance

£32·55

5. Guardian's allowance

£10·85

6. Category C retirement pension

(a) lower rate

£19·45

(b) higher rate

£32·55

The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 93, line 18, leave out ("£21.00") and insert ("£22.50").
The noble and learned Lord said: Once again, we are back to uprating. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 126 to 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Rate of payment]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 112, line 27, leave out ("£185.00") and insert ("£190.00")
Page 112, line 28, leave out ("£43.50") and insert ("£45.30")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 153, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Rates of Benefits, etc.]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 145, line 12, leave out Schedule 4 and insert—
("Schedule 4 Rates of Benefits, etc.
Note: This Schedule is subject to alteration by orders made by the Department under section 132 of the Administration Act.

Description of benefit

Weekly rate

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with section 78(5))

7. Category D retirement pension

The higher rate for Category C retirement pensions under paragraph 6 above

8. Age addition (to a pension of any category, and otherwise under section 79)

£0·25

Part IV Increases for Dependants

Benefit to which increase applies

Increase for qualifying child

Increase for adult dependant

(1)

(2)

(3)

£

£

1, Unemployment or sickness benefit—

(a) unemployment benefit, where the beneficiary is under pensionable age

—

26·60

(b) unemployment benefit, where the beneficiary is over pensionable age

10·85

32·55

(c) sickness benefit, where the beneficiary is under pensionable age

—

25·50

(d) sickness benefit, where the beneficiary is over pensionable age

10·85

31·20

2. Invalidity pension

10·85

32·55

3. Maternity allowance

—

25·50

4. Widowed mother's allowance

10·85

—

5. Category A or B retirement pension

10·85

32·55

6. Category C retirement pension

10·85

19·45

7. Child's special allowance

10·85

—

8. Severe disablement allowance

10·85

19·45

9. Invalid care allowance

10·85

19·45

Part V

Rate of Industrial Injuries Benefit

Description of benefit, etc.

Rate

1. Disablement pension (weekly rates)

For the several degrees of disablement set out in column (1) of the following Table, the respective amounts in that Table, using—

(a) column (2) for any period during which the beneficiary is over the age of 18 or is entitled to an increase of benefit in respect of a child or adult dependant;

(b) column (3) for any period during which the beneficiary is not over the age of 18 and not so entitled;

Table

Degree of disablement

Amount

(1)

(2)

(3)

Per cent.

£

£

100

88·40

54·15

90

79·56

48·74

80

70·72

43·32

70

61·88

37·91

60

53·04

32·49

50

44·20

27·08

40

35·36

21·66

30

26·52

16·25

20

17·68

10·83

Description of benefit, etc.

Rate

2. Maximum increase of weekly rate of disablement pension where constant attendance needed

(a) except in cases of exceptionally severe disablement

£35·40

(b) in any case of exceptionally severe disablement

£70·80

3. Increase of weekly rate of disablement pension (exceptionally severe disablement)

£35·40

4. Maximum of aggregate of weekly benefit payable for successive accidents

(a) for any period during which the beneficiary is over the age of 18 or is entitled to an increase in benefit in respect of a child or adult dependent

£88·40

(b) for any period during which the beneficiary is not over the age of 18 and not so entitled

£54·15

5. Unemployability supplement under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7

£54·15

6. Increase under paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 of weekly rate of unemployability supplement

(a) if on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 35 or if that date fell before 5th July 1948

£11.55

(b) if head (a) above does not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 40 and he had not attained pensionable age before 6th April 1979

£11.55

(c) if head (a) and (b) above do not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 45

£7.20

(d) if heads (a),(b)and (c) above do not apply and on the qualifying date the beneficiary was under the age of 50 and had not attained pensionable age before 6th April 1979

£7.20

(e) in any other case

£3.60

7. Increase under paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 of weekly rate of disablement pension

£10.85

8. Increase under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 of weekly rate of disablement pension

£32.55

9. Maximum disablement gratuity under paragraph 9 of Schedule 7

£5,870.00

10. Widow's pension (weekly rates)

(a) initial rate

£57.65

(b) higher permanent rate

£54.15

(c) lower permanent rate 30 per cent. of the first sum specified in section 44(4) (Category A basic retirement pension)

(the appropriate rate being determined in accordance with paragraph 16 of Schedule 7)

11. Widower's pension (weekly rate)

£54.15

12. Weekly rate of allowance in respect of children under paragraph 18 of Schedule 7

In respect of each qualifying child

£10.85.")

The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this is a sizeable amendment, but it is for the same reason as the earlier amendments up-rating the Bill, replacing Schedule 4 as drafted with the new Schedule 4 with new figures. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases).]
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 169, line 27, leave out ("£31.25") and insert ("£32.55").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last of this little series, I am glad to say. I beg to move.
1496
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon: May I take the opportunity of pointing out that the Opposition have not in any way held up government legislation this evening? After congratulating the noble and learned Lord for his athletic activities between the Woolsack and the Front Bench opposite, I also wish to extend the congratulations and thanks of the Opposition Party to the two Deputy Chairmen who have so speedily gone through a large amount of business. I believe that the House is most appreciative.
The Lord Chancellor: I wish to express my appreciation of the great assistance of the noble Lord and his colleagues in getting the business through the

1497
House. I also join him in warmly congratulating and thanking the two Deputy Chairmen who have so ably conducted proceedings which have been formal, but it has been quite tricky getting them right.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
7.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
on Question, Motion agreed to.
house in Committee (on re-commitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the house do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8.15 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 9.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 216:
Page 112, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) there is an appropriate amount of council tax benefit in the case of that person if he and all the other residents in the dwelling each have savings of less than £16,000 and all the other residents are in receipt of one or more of the following benefits—
income support;
retirement pension;
disability working allowance;
severe disablement allowance;
invalid care allowance;
unemployment benefit;
invalidity benefit;
family credit, and
(c) the appropriate amount of council tax benefit for the purpose of paragraph (b) shall be 25 per cent,").
1498
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 216 is a probing amendment. I say that because this is not where we would have wished to have started from. The amendment seeks to discuss the issue of second low income adult rebates. We suggest in the amendment a possible way forward which may contain flaws, as all other approaches—including the stepped benefit approach proposed by the Minister —appear to contain flaws. However, we hope that we may at least extract some further information from the Minister about the Government's thinking on the issue.
The amendment discusses the issue of second low income adult rebate. Under the Bill only the liable person who nominally pays the bill is eligible for a rebate. However, the bill will be a two-person bill where there is a second adult in the household. The question that we have explored in previous amendments is how to take into account in the final bill the fact that the liable person has a low income and there is a second adult with a very low income when only one of those two people, the liable person, can claim a rebate. Obviously, one cannot claim a rebate both for oneself and on behalf of someone else. That is why there are difficulties in the case of students. If a student can claim a discount, it is improbable, given the structure of the Bill, that he could also claim a rebate on the second person.
The Government have honourably recognised the problem in what have been termed their stepped discounts for the second adult. However, they have come up with an answer of amazing, and, in my view, unnecessary, complexity. I understand that the DSS has not been able to persuade any of the local authority associations that the scheme is workable and administratively feasible. If it is not feasible those who most need help will not have access to it.
Under the Government's scheme the second adult would generate a rebate, benefit or discount, call it what you will—let us call it a benefit—on the first adult's bill if the income of the second person was below £130 a week. Therefore, they would receive a 25 per cent. discount if the second person was on income support, a 15 per cent. discount if that person was on income support of up to £100, and a 7½ per cent. discount if the amount was between £100 and £130. At £131 there would be no such benefit.
The liable person cannot claim both a rebate for himself and a benefit discount for the second adult. He has to decide which is the more financially advantageous. That is a complex calculation. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I fully understand that the questions may need to be followed up by correspondence.
Given the non-dependent adult deductions, which are a further complexity, will the liable person have to offset in his own rebate a non-dependent adult deduction on the second person, whatever the income? If it is financially advantageous to claim benefit on the second person, does the liable person contribute a non-dependent adult deduction on his own which might wipe out that second person's benefit? Under £100 a week £1 comes off benefit; over £100 a week the

1499
amount is £2 a week. If that non-dependent deduction applies, the calculations will often become extremely complex.
I sought to make some calculations earlier today; I believe that they are right. Let us take a £400 headline bill. The first liable adult has a £75 income; the second adult also has £75. It may be two women friends in part-time jobs. On the headline bill of £400, the first adult receives a rebate of approximately £1; if it were on the second adult there would be a benefit of—
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may briefly interrupt. I am trying to be helpful. I noted a joint income between the two—I appreciate that it may not be relevant—of £150 a week. The noble Baroness refers to two friends on separate incomes sharing a house.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With incomes of £70 each.
Lord Henley: Therefore it is £140 a week.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry. The amount is £75 each. It is £150 a week. On a headline bill of £400 the first adult will have a rebate of approximately £1 on her income (if it were two women); if it relates to the second adult there would be a benefit of £1.20. However, if the non-dependent adult deduction came into play it would wipe it out on the first person and leave a small benefit on the second which would be below the minimum figure.
That is possibly the simplest example that I could find of a headline tax relating to two people with identical incomes. If one complicates the situation with different incomes and different non-dependent deductions the permutations become impossible to calculate without a personal computer.
None of the local authority associations believes that that system will work. This probing amendment —it may have flaws—seeks to offer a simpler method so that a household with two adults who are not spouses can calculate how best to get help for their bills. The best way to avoid calculations on separate incomes is to use the passport (if I may so call it) of benefit which avoids means testing, and simplifies the position. Some of the benefits are means tested. They therefore already presuppose low income. The three which are not means tested£retirement pension, invalidity care and invalidity benefit—in conjunction with the £16,000 ceiling on savings are a rough proxy for low income.
Given those facts, and those discounts, is there a problem? First, the position is clearly administratively simple and straightforward. A second adult who enjoys one of those benefits would automatically trigger a 25 per cent. discount on the bill. Income support, family credit and so on are related to poverty; therefore there need not be a problem. Retirement pension, invalidity care, and invalidity benefit conjoined with the £16,000 ceiling are a rough proxy. I accept that it is only a rough proxy. As a way to target help simply to those who are financially very poor, the amendment seems appropriate.
However£and this is a matter that the noble Lord indicated to us earlier£the amendment might
1500
produce the problem of more than 100 per cent. withdrawal and therefore marginal tax rates of over 100 per cent. Over supper I have considered some of the benefits and I have been wondering whether the Minister's comment was as applicable as he suggested. I am not persuaded that it is, but perhaps he will assist. So far as I can see, retirement pension, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowances are long-term benefits. Therefore, the problem of income rising and a person therefore coming off benefit with a severe 25 per cent. cliff should not arise accept in very exceptional circumstances. That assumes that it remains conjoined with the £16,000 ceiling.
The next major benefit is unemployment benefit. If someone comes off that benefit, he goes into work. Normally one would expect there to be a sizeable improvement in his income so that although there was a 25 per cent. cliff it would be more than mopped up by an appropriate and proper increase in take-home pay. The problems that may exist appear to relate to income support and family credit. Family credit is adjusted only every six months, and six months after a change in circumstances. In practice a family could have experienced a substantial rise in income and have continued to enjoy the benefit of that mode of targeting income for six months longer. I accept that at that point they would come off the 25 per cent. discount on their second income. Nonetheless it would be six months later.
The other situation in which that might happen relates to family income support. However, given the earnings rule that a lone parent, for example, has only a £15 disregard, and the hours rule that after 16 hours work one is regarded as being in full-time work and not eligible for income support, there would have to be a rise of at least £30 or more in income for it to be worth anyone to come off income support into work. At that point the loss of the 25 per cent. discount would again be largely mopped up.
The only allowance where it is likely that the Minister's earlier comment would probably hold valid is in the disability working allowance where there might indeed be problems. That issue would have to be considered.
We have sought to put forward various amendments. The problem remains that there is a difficulty built into the bill regarding the second adult's low income for a two person household other than that of partners. We have tried splitting the bill and having individual rebates. I was assisted by what the Minister said earlier. Perhaps we can follow it through. However it does not look as though that is the way forward. Consideration was given to a proposal for joint and several liability which would apply in some cases. That may be a matter that we can pursue. If the Minister's earlier response is held to be valid and appropriate when it has been considered carefully, that will be a move forward.
The Minister has also produced a stepped benefit which clearly will not do. The local authority associations have unanimously said that they cannot make such a system work. We are therefore trying to find a way forward which meets the problem that we all identify, which is basically fair, which is possible to

1501
administer, and which is transparent for people so that they will claim it. With more complicated benefits such as family credit, there is a take-up rate of barely 50 per cent.
This is a probing amendment. It is another way of tackling the problem of the second low income adult in a two-person household. I welcome the Minster's response. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may make an observation before the Minister replies. I am not well versed in the social security system. The noble Baroness has indicated a number of significant difficulties.
I make the comment with some diffidence because I am sure that I do not perceive all the problems that apply. I am not entirely persuaded that the noble Baroness follows the logic of the Bill in the way that she has presented the amendment. As others said earlier, when one applies the logic of any Bill to specific cases with precision, complexities inevitably result. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made that point well. I am sure that that is right. We must not expect matters to be over-simple.
However, at the same time it seems a coherent approach within the framework of the Bill that specific categories of persons are subject to discount, or generate discount, and that the notion of benefit relates to the income of individuals. I found that coherent. The noble Baroness indicates difficulties. I do not doubt that there will be complexities which may not be easy to resolve. I have found myself more rather than less confused by the noble Baroness's amendment. She seeks to apply benefit with regard to various categories. She has implicitly admitted in her remarks that some of those categories imply limited income.
Clearly if one is in a category which attracts income support, it means that one's income has been tested and is very limited. However, there are other categories about which that simply is not true. For instance, the fact that someone receives a retirement pension does not imply that the person has low income. It is possible for an individual who has savings of less than £16,000 to be in receipt of a retirement pension and a private pension. For example, a former director of a large company may have a substantial income. I realise that it is not helpful to refer to people who are well remunerated when we are focusing on the problem of people who are not well remunerated. However, the approach of solving the problem by means of categories cannot be right.
I believe that the right approach, which I am sure the noble Baroness seeks, is to ensure that people on low incomes are not liable to pay more council tax than is appropriate. I am sure that one sympathises with her approach but I am doubtful about the logic. Perhaps I may make a criticism and say that the difficulty is reflected in the manner in which the noble Baroness is able to interchange the words "discount" and "benefit" in her discourse. Therefore, within the logic of the Bill I found it difficult to understand what the noble Baroness was saying.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am grateful that the noble Baroness made it clear that this is only a probing amendment. As I suggested before the Committee broke for dinner, it creates a poverty trap. I can assure the Committee that the Government have taken special care to ensure that our proposed system of second adult rebates is as fair and as simple as possible. We believe that the system we have devised strikes the correct balance between targeting help for those households where second adults are on the lowest incomes and, at the same time, responding to local authority associations' concerns to minimise the administrative complexity of the new scheme.
The noble Baroness said that all the local authority associations say that the scheme is unworkable. That is not the advice that I have been given. In discussions with officials they have certainly not said that the government proposals for second adult rebates are unworkable. In response to their concerns to minimise the complexity, we have simplified our proposals for the second adult rebates. They will now work on a similar basis to the non-dependant deduction. There will certainly be no need to canvass second adults for their personal details. The liable person will be able to supply any information that is required.
Under the proposed system of second adult rebates a person liable to pay the council tax will be eligible for a rebate of up to 25 per cent. of his bill in respect of second adults with low income who share his dwelling. A maximum 25 per cent. rebate will be awarded in respect of a second adult or second adults on income support. As the noble Baroness correctly said, lower levels of rebate will apply in respect of second adults with higher gross income levels. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made clear on 28th November, second adults with a combined gross income of up to £100 a week but above income support levels will attract a 15 per cent. rebate, and those with a combined income of from £100 to £130 a week, a 7½ per cent. rebate. That is the £1 and £2 per week mentioned by the noble Baroness. Second adults with a combined income of more than £130 a week will not attract any second adult rebate.
The generous gross income thresholds we have set for second adult rebates will mean that a number of second adults with incomes above income support levels will attract a rebate. That will help people on low wages as well as people on benefit.
The noble Baroness proceeded to give an example which she said was the simplest she could offer in the time available. I was unable to note all that she said and therefore it may be better if I respond in detail by means of correspondence. However, I am prepared to say, and I accept, that in a small number of cases—we estimate no more than 10,000—a liable person may be entitled to both the second adult rebate and the council tax benefit in his own right. In those circumstances the local authority will be obliged to award whichever of the two entitlements is the greater. However, no one can receive both the second adult

1503
rebate and the main benefit at the same time. Information on the claim form should enable the local authority to make the calculation.
The amendment, which would introduce a savings limit of £16,000 for each resident in the household, would not be well targeted. It would work to the benefit of a number of people who cannot necessarily be said to be on low incomes. Entitlement to retirement pension is not related to incomes but depends solely on the satisfaction of appropriate contribution conditions. Receipt of retirement pension is not therefore in itself evidence of being on a low income. Similar arguments apply to other benefits, notably invalidity benefit. At the same time, oddly, the proposed list of benefits makes no mention of widow's benefits, including those paid specifically to widowed mothers with children. I make that point merely in passing because if the noble Baroness was going to include retirement pension she might have included them. But the same argument would apply.
The amendment is defective since it would create a poverty trap. As soon as a second adult moved off one of the prescribed lists of benefits the whole household would lose entitlement to any second adult rebate. For example, loss of invalid care allowance when caring ceased could easily trigger the loss of the second adult rebate. Thus the smallest gain in extra income could cost £100 a year in extra council tax.
I should like to examine the comments the noble Baroness made about the other benefits. I suspect that she was wrong about the disability working allowance because much of the working of that is very similar to family credit. To say that people automatically when leaving unemployment benefit are going to work is again not true. Obviously, a large number of long-term unemployed in particular are going off unemployment benefit and on to income support where the problems that the noble Baroness cited might apply.
The information required about second adults' gross income for our proposals will be obtained from the liable householder, as is currently the case for non-dependent deductions in housing benefit. In addition, the income thresholds tie in with those that will apply for non-dependent deductions in housing benefit from next April and for council tax benefit from April 1993. Our proposed system of second adult rebates will, therefore, overcome most of the local authority associations' concerns about the administrative complexity of the scheme.
By contrast the amendment moved by the noble Baroness would require local authorities to administer a household resources test. Information would have to be furnished about the savings of each individual member living in the household. That could be burdensome to local authorities and to claimants; indeed, more cumbersome than the Government's proposals.
I certainly give the assurance that I shall look carefully at the specific examples the noble Baroness gave and I shall write to her at the appropriate time. I shall have a look through what she said about some of the different benefits she listed as trigger benefits
1504
and, if necessary, and if there is anything that I can add, I shall write to her on those matters. I hope that what I have said reassures the noble Baroness that we have achieved the right balance and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before I respond. He gave a full answer but was not able to address the question of non-dependent adult deductions. Will he confirm my understanding that of either benefit—that is, the benefit on the first person or the second person low income discount or benefit—the non-dependent adult discount or deduction also comes into play on each of those?
Lord Henley: I am loath to respond at this moment because I am not quite sure that I have grasped entirely what the noble Baroness means. I shall be delighted to add that to the matters about which I was going to write to her; namely, the specific examples which she gave.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a probing amendment so I shall not seek a Division on this matter. Clearly we shall want to read what the Minister said about individual benefits. We want to check the points he made about invalid care allowance. I am not so confident about some of his other statements; for example, if one comes off unemployment benefit and goes on to income support, one would not lose 25 per cent. That is one example which he gave. He gave an example of a person who was unemployed becoming a pensioner. The stability of the situation would remain and therefore the cliff does not apply. The cliff only applies if one's circumstances change; for example, if one comes off any of those benefits to go to work.
Lord Henley: What I want to make clear about unemployment benefit is that the same applies to that as to income support. One can come off unemployment benefit to go on to income support but one does not have to come off unemployment benefit to go into work. The specific example that I am quite sure about, which I gave, is that of invalid care allowance. I should like the noble Baroness to look at that example which I gave.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The point about unemployment benefit becoming income support is that one continues to carry one's 25 per cent. discount and therefore the situation as envisaged by the noble Lord does not arise in that case.
I accept that we may be dealing with an inadequate way forward. When I moved the amendment, I tried to emphasise that we would not start from here. We have now tried to pursue three, four or five different routes. When considering the example of a bill based on two adults of which the first is on low income and the second is on very low income, the Government's response has been to go for what I call stepped benefit or stepped discount for the second person.
My fears about that are reconfirmed because I understand that the Housing Benefit Standing Committee and the Council Tax Benefit sub-group

1505
have both said that they consider that the revised proposals of the DSS are marginally better than the original ones but they are still not persuaded that it would be possible to track fluctuations in third-party incomes, revise benefit as and when necessary, and so on.
The views of the local authority associations have not changed. They believe that there is a problem and the Government's proposal is not administratively feasible. We have tried three or four other possibilities. We have suggested splitting the bill or splitting the rebate. We have suggested joint and several liability so that it is possible to switch, and so on. All the suggestions are to some degree flawed. At the end of the day, the only adequate response—and this is the view which my party takes—would be to have a more generous rebate system altogether. That would float people off the need to claim second adult low income discount or rebate.
I shall read what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 217:
Page 113, line 12, at end insert ("calculated so that the applicable amount in the case of a person aged between 18 years and 24 years inclusive shall not be a lower amount than would apply to a person aged between 25 years and 59 years inclusive, solely on account of the age of the former person.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 219. This amendment seeks to rectify an anomaly, and indeed an injustice, which we believe would occur if the provisions attached to the poll tax, which is a head tax, were carried through to the council tax, which is based largely on property. Before 1988, the level of benefit that people attracted depended solely on their income interlocked with the size of their rate liability. Age was not a factor taken into account. Housing benefit covered both rent and rate rebates.
April 1988 saw the implementation of the Social Security Act which introduced age-related benefits and a minimum 20 per cent. contribution towards rates as part of what I would call the softening-up process or, at any rate, moves towards the poll tax.
Young people who were householders aged under 25 in 1988 faced a double blow. Not only had they to pay the first 20 per cent. of their rates, as opposed to a rebate which covered the whole bill; but, secondly, their eligibility for rebate was reduced by virtue of their age. Therefore, a younger householder was hit twice over.
A year later came the poll tax. Under the poll tax almost all adults over the age of 18 faced an individual bill. I accept that at that time the concept of the householder had less relevance. When it came to rebates, single claimants, without children, aged between 18 and 24 were given a less generous rebate on the assumption, which was broadly true, that they were not householders. Therefore, they needed help only with individual bills and no premium on the grounds that they were not householders.
1506
That was never entirely accurate. The CAB estimate that one-fifth of those aged under 25 were householders and they lost out. At least that argument was justified or appeared to be justified on the grounds that most young people claiming poll tax rebates would be living at home.
As the Social Services Committee has recently shown, that is increasingly not true. Only 43 per cent. of women and 63 per cent. of men still live with their parents by the time they are 21. By the age of 24 it seems likely, although I do not have the figures, that the majority of young people are no longer living with their parents.
Only some of those people will be householders. Some will be sharing with their friends. However, I am trying to draw a distinction between younger single people who are not householders and older single people who are. That was completely irrelevant as regards the poll tax. Now one bill will go to the liable householder, the same bill whatever his age. Whether he is 23 or 26 he will face identical costs and I suggest that income for income he should receive identical help.
Indeed, as the income of the 23 year-old is likely to be rather less than that of the 26 or 27 year-old, he is more rather than less in need of help. Therefore, a distinction which had some validity under the poll tax, because that was a head tax, is irrelevant and unfair as regards the council tax. In this instance, we should revert back to the situation which pertained before 1988 when the householder as such enjoyed the rebate appropriate to his income irrespective of age. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Unlike an earlier Opposition amendment, I have no hesitation in supporting this one which, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, seeks to remedy an anomaly and an injustice.
I never understood the rationale or justification for heaping greater burdens upon those aged under 25 because, as the noble Baroness further pointed out, fewer and fewer people of that age are living with their parents. Even when they do, more often than not, when they are in work they are contributing towards household expenses. This amendment is wholly justified and I hope that it may be pressed to a Division if the Government resist it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Monson, with some delight because, on this occasion, we are on the same side of the fence. I support the noble Baroness, and I am happy to do so. Furthermore, I am happy to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
The truth is that in many ways I feel outgunned. That is partly because of the speed at which nearly everyone speaks. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, perhaps holds the record. But she is closely followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is not far behind. I am glad to follow a Member of the Committee who speaks more or less at the pace at which I speak. My view on this is supported by listening to the speeches of Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister during the war. His speech was exceedingly slow. It benefited from that

1507
slowness. I shall not try to compete with him. However, it would make it easier for us to understand these complexities if we did not go at such a gallop. That is a purely personal opinion.
I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who properly drew my attention to the equation between fairness and complexity. I agree with him that with extremely complex legislation and when trying to be fair, one gets these absurd anomalies. This is yet another case of an absurd anomaly.
I do not apologise for taking time because this is yet another amendment which was not considered in the House of Commons. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was in the House of Commons with Sir Gerald Nabarro. If so, he will remember the fun that he had with purchase tax. He may remember the extraordinary occasion when Sir Gerald asked about two different products being rated differently. He said, "What is the difference between a door-knocking nutcracker and a nut-cracking doorknocker?" The noble Lord nods his head and I am glad that he remembers the occasion. That is the state of play we have reached. We do not want to continue with such complexity so that other Sir Gerald Nabarros can make fun of the legislation. That is what will happen. The Bill is so complex that, if people are not annoyed by it, they will make fun of it. That is not how we wish our legislation to be viewed.
I support the amendment because the citizens advice bureaux support it, as always for good reason. They are not irresponsible organisations. They support amendments which illustrate the conditions they encounter in the field. They find that this kind of nonsense does not enhance people's ability to pay. It is that kind of common-sense approach which they come up with from the field, which I hope Ministers will take on board and try to improve on.
Ability to pay is important. It is no good—if I may revert to previous amendments—pursuing people who cannot pay. It is absurd to go into the tremendous complexities of judicial process, bailiffs and distraints and ultimately prison. All those are hopelessly costly and the whole exercise is counter-productive in social terms.
I regard the amendment as being important because unless it is accepted the Bill will not be understood by the 18 to 25 year-old people. I say no more than that. Everything has been said at a most impressive rate of words per minute by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. In my slow way I am asking the Government to be more sympathetic on this occasion to an amendment which seems to be more commonsensical than the kind of provision they propose. If they will kindly look at the legislation in that light, I shall be immensely relieved and pleased.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches support the amendment. On the question of speed of speaking, it is a good idea to speak extremely fast when one is not clear of one's case. It makes it much more difficult for one's opponent to reply and that is sometimes worth remembering.
1508
In regard to the amendment, the issue lies on the question of whether distinction should be made on the basis of age. It is up to the Government to establish that there is some logical reason why distinction should be made on the basis of age. If it is need with which we are concerned, what reason is there to suppose that all people in a specific age group have lesser needs than those in another age group? If distinctions need to be made it is difficult to see why they should be made on the basis of age, and we should like to hear from the Government what defence there is for that. If not, the amendment should be adopted. If distinctions must be made, they should be made on some other basis.
Lord Henley: Two issues arise on this point. As the noble Baroness says, there is the issue of age. I am afraid that on this point there is no agreement between us. I simply do not accept that it is wrong that there should be distinctions in benefit level on the basis of age. That has been central to our approach since the reforms of 1988, which were designed to direct available resources towards those groups most in need while making the benefit system easier to administer and understand. A straightforward distinction in benefit levels on the basis of age is central to that approach.
The amendment obviously goes to the heart of those changes introduced in April 1988. The majority of single people under 25 are non-householders with no independent liability for paying housing costs. Their average earning power is also lower than that of older people. That is why we apply a lower benefit rate for income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit purposes. We intend that the same rules should apply to council tax benefit. Many people under 25 will not be liable for the council tax because they live in the parental home. Others are couples and lone parents. For those groups there is no age divide above 18, in recognition of their independent status. Neither of those groups will therefore be affected by the lower rate of benefit for young single people.
The first point was whether or not it is right to have a distinction in benefit levels on the basis of age. There is obviously no agreement between us on that and there will not be. The matter has been argued on many occasions. The second point is whether or not those young people under 25 who are not single or lone parents and therefore not entitled to the over-25 rate, will be worse off. The effect of the rules is that all young people claiming community charge benefit and, from 1993, council tax benefit, will be left with at least their income support applicable amount to live on after paying their contribution towards local services. It is that applicable amount which is the appropriate amount at which one should look—the income support applicable amount.
As we have already said, we consider it right that that applicable amount should be lower for single people under 25 than for those aged 25 and over. Those young people who are lone parents or disabled benefit from the special premiums and higher earnings disregards which apply to those groups irrespective of age. The same is true for those who are couples under 25 years of age.

1509
Lastly, it is only fair to mention the cost of the amendment. As we discussed earlier this afternoon, this Chamber should always be aware of the cost of any amendment tabled. The cost of the proposal which, in all equity, would need to be extended to all income related benefits—that is, income support and housing benefit—would be £260 million at the 1991–92 benefit rates.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister be kind enough to give us the figures just for this benefit?
Lord Henley: I cannot for the moment give figures simply for this benefit. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that in all equity, if we accepted the proposal for this benefit we could not leave off housing benefit, particularly as the noble Baroness mentioned the problems, as she saw them, with housing benefit and income support. In all equity one would have to extend it to all three. As I said, the cost would be around £260 million at 1991–92 benefit rates. I cannot therefore support the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: My noble kinsman has just said something rather interesting. He said that benefit levels for young people should be lower because their average earnings are lower. That principle goes rather too far. If one applies it generally its implications may be quite startling.
The average earnings of women are lower than the average earnings of men. If that is a reason for discrimination in benefit levels, there ought to be lower benefit levels for women. The earnings of black people are on average lower than the earnings of white people. If that is a reason for lower levels of benefit, the Government ought to be paying lower levels of benefit to black people, which may give rise to a certain amount of comment. Again, the average earnings of people with disabilities are lower than the general average. Is that being put forward as a reason for paying them lower levels of benefit. If not, why not? If the cases are different, how are they different?
My noble kinsman also argued that most younger people are not householders. Here again we have a determined Government belief that all young people live at home. That is a case against which there is a rapidly growing body of evidence which might, in the end, get through. My noble kinsman also argued that if we accept the case for council tax benefit we should also accept it for other benefits. I accept quite freely that most Members of the Committee who have spoken to this amendment would like to see that principle extended to other benefits. However, it is perfectly logical and possible to apply it to this benefit and not to others because this benefit is designed to meet one particular need. That is another reason why I find it very curious that it is so directly attached to average earnings. If it is meant to meet a specific need, and that specific need is identical regardless of age, why should not the benefit be also identical?
9 p.m.
Lord Henley: My noble kinsman makes a ridiculous point. As always, he tries to take his logic to some rather peculiar logical conclusion, the whereabouts of which we are not quite sure. He completely ignores any idea such as the incentive to work. I stick by what I said. I do not believe that there is any movement that we can make. If we follow my noble kinsman's logic to its logical conclusion on that matter, why then does he say that we do not have to follow the logic that one would have to follow, in accepting this amendment, in terms of moving on to the other income-related benefits such as income support and housing benefit? My noble kinsman cannot have it both ways. I know perfectly well that if the Government concede this amendment it would not be a matter of a year, a few months or a week, but at the next stage of the Bill that my noble kinsman would table an amendment to try to extend the provision to income support and housing benefit. He knows that perfectly well.
Earl Russell: My noble kinsman knows that I have done that before and that I will do it again, whether or not the Government accept this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was great fun! Perhaps I may respond to a couple of points that the Minister made. To some extent I am following on the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As regards costs and the figure of £260 million, I accept that there is a logical connection between abolishing the age disadvantage if it is done for council tax benefit and doing it for housing benefit. I can accept that logic. That is because both are household benefits and they go to the householder. In contrast, income support goes to the individual whether that person is living within a household, with parents or with friends. There is a perfectly clear distinction between personal benefits and what I call household benefits —that is to say, benefits to which someone might have a householder premium attached. I again invite the noble Lord to tell us the difference in cost between those two figures. That is a very basic distinction in the social security perspective.
Lord Henley: As I said, I cannot give the figures which the noble Baroness requires. I have said in all equity that I did not see how we could extend it to one provision without extending it to the other. The cost is £260 million per annum.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the Minister accept that income support is a personal benefit and that the benefit that we are talking about is a council tax benefit? I concede that housing benefit is a household benefit. Does the Minister accept that there is a logical distinction between the two? I shall be very surprised if he cannot.
The more worrying point was the statement picked up by the noble Earl. The Minister's argument was that an individual under 25 years of age should have a lower income than somebody over 25. Because they have a lower income, he said, they should have lower income support in order to protect the work incentive. Therefore, says the Minister, they should have a lower

1511
council tax benefit. I see the argument about work incentive, but in return the Minister should see the argument about poverty. He has made my case for me.
We are talking about two liable householders; 22 or 23 years of age on the one hand, and 26 or 27 years of age on the other. They have identical costs, the same rent, the same council tax, the same water rates and the same fuel bills. However, according to the Minister, the 22 or 23 year-old will have a lower income with which to meet those costs so he already experiences a greater strain. Then, to add insult to injury, the noble Lord intends that he should also receive less help and less rebate in meeting those costs.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness completely misunderstands me. I made it quite clear in both examples that she gave that those persons would be left with the applicable amount. Where we are at issue —it is a matter on which there is obviously no agreement—is whether there should be lower rates of income support for those over 25 years of age or under 25 years of age.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely agree. Can the Minister tell me where my logic is wrong? We have a 23 year-old and a 26 year-old with the same costs. They have the same costs; the same housing and water rates and so forth. I was startled to hear the Minister say—and I quote his own words—that the younger person will have a lower income so less capacity to meet the same costs. Most people would consider that to be a reason for increasing the eligibility for rebate and increasing the rates so that that person is in the same position to meet his or her costs as the older person. On the contrary, the Minister said that that is an argument for giving young householders reduced help to meet their needs because they start off with reduced income to meet the same costs.
On arguments of equity or fairness I believe that the Government's position is less defensible on this issue than anything, except perhaps the student nurses, that we have heard all night. It is too late to seek the opinion of the Committee, but we shall return to this matter. I hope we shall be able to persuade more noble Lords that the Minister's argument is not only not equitable, but that it is profoundly and deeply inequitable to the young householder.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that there is a difference between income and disposable income. Many of the people who have been targeting the young in the past have considered that a younger person who might have less income might have more actual free disposable income because he has fewer commitments in terms of family and so on. That is a matter which should not be overlooked.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness is right. We are speaking about two single people without families. Into income support and the benefits structure are built premiums for lone parents, families and the like, including people with children. While the noble Baroness is entirely right, in practice that situation is already covered by social security. We are comparing like with like. The only difference is two
1512
years with lower income, same costs and lower rebates. That is what the Minister has presented to us and that is his position.
Lord Henley: Again, the noble Baroness is deliberately trying to misunderstand me. I said that two people on income support would both be left with their appropriate applicable amount for the age they are, whether they are over or under 25 years of age.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is right.
Lord Henley: That might mean that they have different amounts of disposable cash. I was trying to say that that is what we are trying to do in the income support system. We have different rates for the over 25s and the under 25s.
Lady Hollis of Heigham: That is entirely right. The point is that the Minister seems to think that that is appropriate and we do not; and merely to tell us that it is appropriate, therefore it is appropriate, is not an answer to an argument. I do understand what the Minister is saying, but it is the Minister, if I may say so, who is going round in loops on his argument. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not press the matter. Nonetheless, we shall come back to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 113, line 12, at end insert:
("and in determining any amount of council tax benefit under this subsection, no deduction shall be made in respect of any person who is a non-dependant").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 217C. This is another probing amendment which has regard to the suggestion of the removal of deductions made from claimants' council tax benefit when there are so-called non-dependants in the household. Non-dependant deductions are reductions of certain housing-related benefits to take account of contributions which are assumed—and I stress the word "assumed"—to be made by non-dependants, such as grown up children or elderly relatives, who are living in the same accommodation. The deductions are made from housing benefit and from income support paid in respect of housing costs. To give a parallel example, they are not made from mortgage interest tax relief. They are not made from poll tax benefit, for obvious reasons, because the non-dependants are themselves liable to pay the poll tax.
We understand that when the council tax benefit replaces poll tax benefit the Government intend to restore non-dependant deductions. The non-dependant deduction is opposed by many agencies who are concerned with alleviating the problems faced by people on low incomes. It is right that we should spend a moment looking at why that is and asking the Government to defend the position.
Non-dependant deductions cause hardship because there is a contribution to be made by the non-dependant. The amounts may not sound like a lot of money, but they can be significant to people who are on low incomes. But more than that, the non-dependant is under no obligation to pay the

1513
claimant for council tax benefit, so that the shortfall impacts on the claimant. The point is that the unfairness, the difficulties and the hardship are caused to the claimant. I say that there is no legal obligation, but those concerned may feel that there is a moral obligation. However, that is a little difficult to legislate for.
The deduction can also add to the arrears problems. Where the non-dependant is not making the contribution to the claimant and the claimant is finding difficulty in meeting the difference then arrears start to mount up and the position is exacerbated. There is also the point raised by the agencies who question the situation as to housing policy implications. Do not these deductions discourage people from sharing accommodation? It must be a good thing to make optimal use of housing stock. Finally, but certainly not least, they militate against the care-in-the-community policy by making it harder for claimants to accommodate, for example, frail, elderly relatives.
The negative features of this are unfair on a claimant who may be on a very low income, where the non-dependant is not making up the shortfall, but the deduction is still imposed. Take, for example, a woman with a grown-up son living with her who earns, say, £135 a week and she is on income support. The son is not willing to make a contribution to the rent or to council tax but she is not willing to throw him out. No doubt we have all met many similar examples and can understand why a mother would not feel able to take the very severe step of chucking out a member of her family over this. At 1992 housing levels and proposed council tax deduction rates that mother will have to live at £20 a week below income support level.
That is only a hypothetical example, but it must strike many chords of reality. The amendment is supported by RADAR which, of course, accepts that not all disabled people are affected by the presence of non-dependants. However, it fears that the new rule will penalise disabled people who do not receive attendance allowance but live with somebody and that someone may be a relative or a lodger who is working more than 16 hours a week. That takes us back to the point raised earlier with regard to the changes in the hours rules. Currently, a carer can be disregarded in assessing the claimant's grant contribution if they work less than 24 hours, but the 24 is to be dropped to 16 and that may lead to more disabled people paying the higher grant contribution if the carer works in that band between 16 and 24 hours.
I come back to the unenforceable nature of the non-dependent contribution. This is not a weakness of the system. I will not go down the road that may have been suggested earlier of wondering aloud whether the abolition of the rules should extend to other areas of social security. But is it not a retrograde step to restore it to local government taxation? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I feel quite nostalgic. It is almost like discussing the Social Security Bill again. I think of the last Social Security Bill where we totted up the cost of
1514
the amendments as they came in. I suspect that we are already approaching the billion pound mark on the amendments put forward today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that the Minister will agree that most of the amendments that have been rejected by the Government or Members opposite have been mutually exclusive. They should not be added. That may be a result of some of the complexities of Tory Government political statements at the moment.
Lord Henley: They are not all mutually exclusive. At any rate, just for the record, it would be useful if the Committee were informed that this one adds another £60 billion to the bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Billion?
Lord Henley: I am sorry, £60 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: You see, you are doing it again.
Lord Henley: I cannot read my Ms from my Bs. The noble Baroness argues that there should be no non-dependent deductions in council tax benefit. I think I should explain that non-dependent deductions have been part of the benefit scheme, quite rightly, for a long time. We consider it right in principle to assume, in calculating a liable person's entitlement to council tax benefit, that adult non-dependants sharing the dwelling are making some contribution to the council tax bill. Similar rules apply in other income related benefits, including housing benefit, and so on. Under domestic rates non-dependent deductions were made in the rate rebate scheme.
I should however add that the level of nondependent deductions in council tax benefit will be quite modest. I do not think it unreasonable to expect a contribution of £1 a week for non-dependants with incomes of up to £100 a week, and £2 a week for non-dependants will higher incomes. The lower rate deduction of £1 a week will apply in respect of those non-dependants who are not in full-time work. Therefore, most pensioner non-dependants, who are not receiving income support, will be assumed to be contributing only £1 a week to the council tax bill.
The noble Baroness may also be interested in the Government's decision that the £1 and £2 deduction rates will apply in April 1993. Under the rates, non-dependent deductions were £3 a week for the first year of the reformed scheme, 1988–1989. That was a higher rate than we are proposing for the council tax.
The higher rate non-dependent deduction of £2 a week will be broadly equivalent to 25 per cent. of the average weekly council tax bill. This ties in well with the 25 per cent. personal discounts and 25 per cent. maximum second adult rebate. We have also taken care to ensure that the system of non-dependent deductions fits also with the proposals for discounts under Schedule 1 to the Bill. I can reassure the Committee that there will be no non-dependent deductions made in respect of people on income support or people such as students, who fail to be disregarded for the purposes of status discounts.

1515
Finally, since the noble Baroness mentioned RADAR, the Government have taken care, in framing their proposals, to protect the position of disabled people who are non-dependants. Both disability living allowance and residual attendance allowance will be disregarded in calculating the non-dependant's gross income. Disabled non-dependants will not be expected to use benefits designed to help with the extra costs of disability to contribute to the council tax. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord is doing a big totting up sum of the vast sums of money that would be caused by the amendments put forward by the Opposition. What he should bear in mind is that the amendments put forward today are to eliminate the cost to the poorest members of our community. What the noble Lord is saying is that these large costs should be borne by the poorest members of the community because the richer members of the community cannot afford it and need tax reductions.
Lord Henley: That is not strictly speaking true. The attempt to abolish the 20 per cent. in the community charge benefit, which my noble friend dealt with, certainly would have cost double. In making the point, I was merely recalling with nostalgia former social security Bills and totting up the number of amendments, moved, in a thoroughly responsible manner, by the noble Lord's party and noble Lords opposite. It is worth reminding the Committee of what would be the cost to the Government and the taxpayer.
Lord Tordoff: I repeat that the noble Lord is saying that it would be better if these costs were borne by the poorer section of the community rather than by the taxpayer at large.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The debates that we have listened to today are a standard and very important part of the parliamentary process. Whether one is considering the taxation system, the local tax system or the social security system, it is in a permanent state of tension. It is quite right that it should be.
There are those who constantly seek improvement of benefits in order to alleviate what are perceived to be particular hardships. There are those at the other end, always represented by the Government, who have to seek to put the whole matter in balance. When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, it was never for one moment thought, however many improvements one was able to make in benefits for the disabled, that one was ever going to put RADAR or any of the other bodies out of business. On the contrary, the fact that they recognised that the Government would make some improvement in benefits or, as this Government have done, produce a number of wholly new benefits, merely gave them a springboard from which to move on to other perceived shortcomings in the system.
We have all done what my noble friend has done. We have totted up all the costs and said that the total comes to £60 billion. I realise that his figure was a
1516
different one. One is always entitled, particularly when moving amendments to tax Bills, to say, "Well, if you do not give me this, let me try this one and if you don't give me that I shall move an amendment for this one," and then to add them all up. There is a lack of reality about it.
But that is not in any way to deny the validity of the process. Bodies such as the citizens advice bureaux, the Child Poverty Action Group, disability groups and so on, perform an enormously valuable service. To the parties opposite I say only that the every word of such bodies is not to be taken as gospel. They are pushing at the boundaries. In this amendment they are pushing at the boundary of the dependent householder contribution. Perfectly legitimately, they always have.
Every time that this subject comes up there are the same arguments as those produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She gave the impression that it was all coming as a blinding revelation. We have heard it all before. Up comes something to do with assessing benefits for householders. So they pull the paper out of the pigeonhole, change "housing benefit", and call it "council tax" or whatever. The issue is presented as though it is absolutely splendid and new, and the argument is put forward that something has to be done because of the poor people who are suffering great hardship. But it is not new. It is probing the boundaries.
It is the job of those in government to seek those points where inaction is indefensible and where one has to move and those—the often much larger number of cases—where one must say, "We have done all this before. We have been over it. We understand the strength of the case but we do not think it is justified."
I neither quarrel with the cases made by the party opposite nor feel that it is necessary for them all to be added up. It is a very important part of the process. If we are here until all hours of the night I do not begrudge it. It is the way in which the system works but these matters are not to be treated as gospel.
Earl Russell: I think we are well inside the boundaries. Before dealing at length with the subject, I trust that my noble kinsman will forgive me for taking one minute to thank him for regulations recently published ending the non-dependent deduction for prisoners. It is a step in the right direction and maybe there will be one or two more.
My first case for this amendment is that the deductions with which we are dealing have the effect of contradicting government policy. My noble kinsman has argued many times from the Dispatch Box that young people ought to live at home. On these Benches we have not always been happy with the measures taken to induce them to do so. However, we believe that they have the right to do so when it is agreeable to them and their parents and that they should not be unduly discouraged from it. The non-dependent deduction has the effect sometimes of discouraging young people from living at home. A case was reported by a citizens advice bureau in London. A son on income support moved in with his mother. She therefore had an amount deducted from her housing benefit but he could not claim the housing benefit

1517
because he was living with a close relative. The mother was forced to evict him so that her full housing benefit could be restored.
Lord Henley: We are not discussing housing benefit. We are discussing council tax benefit. In council tax benefit, as I understand it, for a son on income support there would be no non-dependent deduction.
Earl Russell: It is certainly my understanding that there are non-dependent deductions going on and that they do affect people living at home.
Lord Henley: Certainly there are non-dependent deductions. I have not denied that. What I am saying is that the example given by my noble kinsman in relation to housing benefit is not relevant to what we are discussing today, which is council tax benefit. For the young man on income support there would be no non-dependent deduction.
Earl Russell: The point I was making is that we are dealing with a disincentive effect. That effect is the same in the two cases even if it is capable of applying to more than one benefit.
The case, along with a number of others, also has the effect of answering the point the Minister made about costs. The Minister took his costs gross. He usually does. But to consider the gross costs only is about as misleading as assuming one can spend one's gross income. No measure is cost free. In the case that I cited the son was evicted. The Government end up having to find funds for two amounts of housing benefit, not for one.
It is not only the young who are affected by non-dependent deductions. A case was reported by a citizens advice bureau in Essex of a client who brought her mother to live with her family rather than have her in a residential home. I know that my noble kinsman knows all about the cost of residential homes. It is considerable, as he has said so many times, so obviously that could have saved the Government some money. But the mother was 30p over the level of entitlement to income support and the client's housing benefit was reduced as a result. I do not know whether that will lead to the same consequence as the first case I quoted, but if it does it will let the Government in for a great deal of extra expense. I think that my noble kinsman ought to count his costs net before he is so confident.
Lord Henley: I shall look very carefully at the examples given by my noble kinsman. But I find it very surprising—I go back to social security Bills—that my noble kinsman objects to my use of gross costs. But for some weird, wonderful and odd reason, every time my noble kinsman puts forward an amendment or speaks in support of one that I claim has gross costs, surprise, surprise, surprise, it is always going to save the taxpayer vast, vast, sums of money. I simply do not believe it.
Earl Russell: That is in part because I do not put forward ones that do not.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry that what has been raised by this amendment is not new. The comment has been made that there is nothing innovative in the amendment. But to me that is precisely the sadness of the situation—old ground is having to be retrod. My noble friend Lord Tordoff was right. The cost is the cost that will be paid by the people who can least afford it by definition, because this affects their council tax benefit. If it is to be around 25 per cent. of the average of a council tax bill, that speaks for itself.
I shall read what the Minister has said, particularly with regard to disablement, and not press the matter further tonight. I must end by commenting on the question of totting up benefits. I understand the temptation to do so. Had earlier amendments been accepted we would not at this stage be further down the Marshalled List with lower preferences. The noble Lord is tempting me—I am surprised that no one else has come in on this—to wonder aloud on the cost of the poll tax. Members of the Committee do not need reminding of that. It was millions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 217B:
Page 113, line 20, leave out from ("which") to ("to") in line 22 and insert:

("(a) the appropriate maximum council tax benefit;

(b) the alternative maximum council tax benefit, are").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 218A, 220A, 225ZA and 225ZB.
These are technical amendments which tidy up the wording of Schedule 9 in a number of places, and make further provision in Clause 117 for council tax benefit regulations in the period before the social security consolidated legislation is commenced on 1st July 1992. For example, Amendment No. 218A corrects a reference to the "main" condition for council tax benefit which will be inserted in Clause 132(7) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill by Schedule 9 to the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 225ZA and 225ZB, which amend Clause 117, are also technical. They will ensure that social security regulations for council tax benefit can be laid in draft, debated by both Houses of Parliament, and made, before the consolidated social security legislation is commenced on 1st July 1992. The amendments cover provisions in Schedule 9 to the Bill, like those that provide for second adult rebates, for which there was no parallel under the community charge. The upshot of the amendments is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security can use powers in the Social Security Act 1986, as substituted by the amendments, to make the benefit regulations before the consolidated social security legislation is commenced on 1st July this year. They will therefore ensure that local authorities will be able to receive the final version of the council tax benefit regulations as soon as possible. It will make their job easier, and I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 217C not moved.]
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 218:
Page 113, line 25, at end insert:
("(12) In subsection (1) of section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payment of benefit), at the end of paragraph (b), there shall be added the words "and such treatment of a claim shall not give rise to a lower rate of council tax benefit subsidy under section 140 below than would otherwise be the case." ").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment which is grouped with Amendment No. 220 relates to the removal of the existing subsidy penalty and is designed to encourage local authorities to provide backdated benefit where a claimant can show good cause for a late claim. The "good cause" principle is one which raises the issue of natural justice. It exists in social security law to allow justice to be done in individual cases where, for example, an applicant was misled by incorrect official advice and so delayed the claim. The provision is not lenient. Ignorance does not count as a good cause. The burden of proof lies upon the claimant.
The effect of the provision is to penalise local authorities if they use their powers to backdate in those circumstances. To say that that is a breach of natural justice is making a strong accusation, but I do not believe that it is entirely inappropriate.
The amendment is a further amendment supported by RADAR. That may make Members of the Committee nostalgic yet again. RADAR points out the special problems faced by people with disabilities. A person with a disability is likely to have a special difficulty in completing and submitting a claim. Such a person may not be able to go out of his home unaccompanied, and may have to rely upon someone else to obtain the form and help process the claim. The enforcement of a subsidy penalty is likely to act as a strong disincentive to local authorities which would otherwise like to assist a person in such circumstances. Were it not for the penalty, they could choose to use their powers to award backdated benefit. Claimants with disabilities and other people in these circumstances will be penalised. Those who have failed to act on time because of their health will suffer stress and anxiety simply because of that problem.
RADAR gives an example of a woman who explained the damaging consequences of the ordeal. She suffers from myasthenia gravis. Having known someone who suffered from that unpleasant and distressing illness, I can well understand what she says. Although she became ill in September 1984, she did not put in a claim for attendance allowance until almost three years later. It was not until two years after that, after repeated appeals, that she was finally granted backdated payment. She mentions the disruption, frustration and stress this caused her at a time when she was unwell and how it affected her condition.
I suggest that to penalise people for the enormous complexities of the schemes to be introduced supposedly for people's benefit—and we have heard a great deal about the complexities of the proposals—is unfair. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has been referring to Amendment No.
1520
220 which is grouped with her Amendment No. 218. I say that with respect to her, because Amendment No. 218 is seriously defective. If anything, the first line of the amendment should read:
"Page 114, after line 15, insert—".
If her amendment were to be accepted, the reference in the last line to Section 140 would be to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness did not intend that. Most of what she suggests is included in Amendment No. 220. I do not wish to pour cold water on the proposal, but I must point out the difficulty.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am afraid I support Amendment No. 218, defective or not. I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 220 which is grouped with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the amendments would remove the loss of subsidy where local authorities are penalised if they grant a backdated claim or benefit where a claimant has shown good cause. As she said, backdating benefit up to 52 weeks is a well established practice in social security legislation for a full range of benefits and good causes. For example, it happens with inaccurate official advice, illiteracy or where someone goes to hospital.
This morning I spoke to the officer responsible for handling backdated claims in my authority. He noted that in the past year he had received a number of applications on grounds that someone had ME. As he said, the last thing on one's mind in that case is sorting out one's benefit.
However, the difference is that the other benefits such as UB, sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, income support and family credit, with the exception of housing benefit, are handled by the DSS. The agency distributing the money is also the agency funding it. Therefore claims against the DSS carry no penalty for the agency distributing the money or the resource. However, as regards council tax benefit, the local authority is itself penalised if it funds a late or backdated claim because at the moment local authorities get 95 per cent.—it should, of course, be 7.5 per cent. —of their rebates funded by the DoE. The rest of the council taxpayers pay the remaining 5 per cent. However, if a local authority accepts a late or backdated claim, only 25 per cent. of it is reimbursed by the DoE and the rest of it falls on local taxpayers. Therefore local taxpayers are not only asked to contribute to the poverty of their area, but they are also asked to contribute to a compassionate response —I hope I may refer to it in that way—to a backdated claim. Given that only 25 per cent. is reimbursed, why should a local authority ever want to agree to such a claim when 75 per cent. of the cost of that claim will be offset on to other local taxpayers?
It cannot be good social policy to build in a disincentive to local authorities to handle sympathetically late claims in this way. As I have said, this provision does not apply to other benefits as the DSS is the agency, but it applies in this case because the local authority is the agency. We ask that central government should fully reimburse local authorities to the 95 per cent. limit. In that case local authorities would judge the issue of backdating on the merit of the

1521
claim and not with an eye over their shoulder to the effect on other council taxpayers. If there is a worry that local authorities would not properly scrutinise such late claims—I do not know whether the Minister might wish to advance that view—that can be caught through audit procedures, exactly as at present. That would be the right and proper way to proceed. I hope we are dealing with a small number of cases. Nevertheless, those claims to late benefit might be disregarded by the local authority because of the financial implications for other council taxpayers. I hope the Government are minded to mend this anomaly.
Lord Henley: I am not sure I can go that far, but I hope I can be somewhat more conciliatory than I have been on some of the earlier amendments. I do not know whether the advice my noble friend gave to the two noble Baronesses is correct on whether or not these two amendments are defective. However I leave it to the two noble Baronesses to make up their own minds on that matter. I am sure they will take note of what my noble friend said and will, presumably, withdraw their amendments at the end of this debate.
I remind the Committee that social security benefits have to be claimed. I include those that are administered by people other than my department. Entitlement to social security benefits depends on the satisfaction by the claimant of appropriate qualifying conditions, whatever they may be. Claims can be backdated, for example where a claimant can show good cause for not having claimed at the correct time. This has been mentioned. However, because of the administrative implications, there is generally—as has been stated—a 52-week limitation on backdated claims. The question of whether good cause exists in any individual case is a matter for local authorities to determine in the case of these benefits. My own department, the Department of Social Security, has supplied authorities with detailed guidance for them to follow based on the department's own practices in administering other social security benefits. We certainly expect that they would follow that guidance.
I now turn to the subsidy arrangements. Under the current subsidy arrangements for community charge benefit, as the noble Baroness has said local authorities receive 95 per cent. subsidy for the bulk of their benefit expenditure and lower rates of subsidy within certain incentive areas, of which backdating is one. The rate of subsidy paid on backdated amounts is, as the noble Baroness correctly said, 25 per cent. An amount equivalent to some 5.5 per cent. of total benefit expenditure is also taken into account in the local government settlement; the additional 0.5 per cent. is in recognition of some unavoidable expenditure within the incentive areas.
The incentive areas were first introduced into benefit subsidy arrangements in April of 1988. They are designed to encourage local authorities to use their judgment carefully in the areas where they have most control over their expenditure. In the particular case of backdating, we would expect local authorities to consider carefully all the available information in reaching a decision as to, for example, good cause. If full subsidy were automatically paid on all backdated
1522
awards, there would be less incentive for authorities to exercise care when taking such decisions. We believe such incentives are sensible and necessary measures.
The incentive areas are a core feature of current subsidy arrangements. They are, however—and this is why I said that I wished to be conciliatory—currently under review. With the full co-operation and participation of the local authority associations, a special working group has been formed with the Department of Social Security to review the arrangements. Officials from the Department of the Environment also attend the group. We are well aware of the views expressed by the associations on the particular issue of subsidy in backdated cases and these will receive full attention during the course of the working group's deliberations.
We have not yet decided on the complete subsidy arrangements for council tax benefit. However, they are likely to be based broadly on current arrangements for community charge benefit. We shall take into account the findings of the incentive area working group, which should have completed its discussion by the spring of 1992.
Without in any way wishing to be rude to either noble Baroness, now is not the moment to debate the individual elements of the subsidy arrangements which are to apply for 1993–94, the first year of the council tax, particularly as we are awaiting the findings of the working group.
In the light of the assurance that matters are still under discussion and we have not yet decided on the complete subsidy arrangements, I hope that the noble Baronesses might feel able to withdraw their amendments.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: If a working group is studying the issue it would be premature to press the amendment. I hope that I am right in thinking that the Minister was confining his remarks to that rather narrow area rather than, as he seemed to be, suggesting that we should not look at the whole issue. Schedule 9 is complex. Moreover, because of the guillotine it did not receive consideration in the other place. That is why we are having to spend a long time on it.
I believe that the amendment is in the right place. It adds another subsection—subsection (12). The subsection referred to is subsection (11) of the new Section 131 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. I am not surprised at the difficulty in pinning these details down.
I shall await with interest what the working group has to say.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. In his response to the two related amendments, he said that one of the arguments for having a very significantly lower rate of reimbursement to local authorities through subsidy —namely not 95 per cent. but only 25 per cent.—was to encourage them to scrutinise claims more diligently. That is an argument. But surely he would not suggest

1523
that they do not scrutinise diligently those for which they receive a 95 per cent. subsidy. Does he not agree that the disparity between those figures far outweighs any propriety in terms of the incidence of fraud and the like and provides a very real disincentive to local authorities to take seriously the claimant's arguments for backdating?
Lord Henley: I am afraid that I do not accept what the noble Baroness said. They are two very different matters and there is justification for having two different levels of subsidy.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 113, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("( ) In subsection (7) of that section, for the word "first", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "main".
( ) In subsection (9) of that section, for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) references to the main condition are references to the condition mentioned in section 131(3) above."").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 not moved.]
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 220A:
Page 114, leave out lines 25 to 33 and insert ("for the words from "provision" to "shall not apply" there shall be substituted the words "provision in relation to council tax benefit that prescribed provisions shall apply instead of prescribed provisions of Part I or II of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or that prescribed provisions of either of those Parts shall not apply".
(3) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) References in subsection (2) above to either of the Parts there mentioned include references to regulations made under the Part concerned."").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 217B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 221 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 221A:
After Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("Rate appeal refunds
.—(1) In this section—
(a) "relevant rates" means the aggregate of

(i) any rates which a rating authority within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967 has repaid under section 79(2) (a) of that Act in respect of any period of rate prior to 1st April 1990 in consequence of any relevant alteration; and

(ii) any rates which a rating authority has refunded under section 9(1) (a) of the General Rate Act 1967 in consequence of a relevant alteration.

(b) "a relevant alteration" means any alteration made in a valuation list by virtue of sections 71 to 78 of that Act after 1st April 1990.
1524
(2) In the chargeable financial year commencing 1st April 1992 a charging authority shall be entitled to deduct and retain from the amount (the provisional amount) which it is liable to pay to the Secretary of State for that year under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act an amount equal to relevant rates repaid by it prior to 1st April 1993 in consequence of any relevant alteration.
(3) In any subsequent chargeable financial year a charging authority shall be entitled to deduct and retain from the amount (the provisional amount) which it is liable to pay to the Secretary of State for that year under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act an amount equal to the relevant rates repaid by it during that financial year in consequence of any relevant alteration.
(4) For each chargeable financial year from 1st April 1992, the Secretary of State shall credit to the account kept by him under Part 1 of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act a sum received from the Treasury equal to the aggregate of the amounts deducted and retained by charging authorities during such year pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to a rather extraordinary state of affairs which has arisen in recent months but refers back to the payment of the non-domestic rate in respect of 1989–90 and earlier years. What has become apparent from the proceedings of the valuation tribunals and valuation courts is that many appeals have been allowed subject to the end of the old rating system. They bring substantial bills to the local authorities involved. In most cases the local authorities themselves are involved, but in London, and in particular in inner London where the bills arrived after the demise of the Inner London Education Authority, they have become the responsibility of the London Residuary Body. That body, according to the director of finance, will propose at its meeting next month to impose a charge of between £35 million and £40 million on London boroughs.
When it became clear that something was going very badly wrong as regards the effect of the appeal procedures on the old rating system, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities wrote in September to the Minster of State for the Department of the Environment suggesting that there should be some special treatment to help the authorities to deal with those sums which they had not budgeted for and which would become part of their reckonable expenditure against their standard spending assessment. The Minster of State pointed out quite reasonably that it would be unfair to authorities which were fortunate enough not to have such appeals if it were to become a charge on the general rate fund. However, he failed to suggest any realistic alternative. He stated that under certain limited circumstances it might be possible for those authorities to capitalise their obligation under the rating appeals. He did not indicate any capital approval for such capitalisations. It would have to come out of existing capital approvals.
We do not say through the amendment that the Government nationally should take responsibility for that obligation. As the Minister of State rightly said, that would be unfair to the other authorities. However, there is no evidence that the authorities concerned could have anticipated that they would he involved in such expenditure or could have budgeted for it. As recently as the last quarter of last year the London Residuary Body expected to have a surplus

1525
on its education account which it could use to the benefit of London boroughs. It was as surprised as anyone else to find that the implications of the late rating appeals meant that the balance was very much the other way round and that considerable amounts of money would have to be demanded from the London boroughs.
In tabling the amendment we are proposing that there should be the possibility of capitalising these obligations but that capital allowances should be made. This is a complicated amendment. The amounts due should be able to be set against the other capital receipts and other capital which has been frozen for other reasons. Although in the end the authorities will be financing these rate appeals and they will not be transferred to any other people, the blow will at any rate be softened.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right in saying that this is a complicated amendment. On the other hand, he has explained extremely well what is at the base of it, in particular the adjustments to make up for past years of non-domestic rates.
These adjustments are not new. They were a constant feature of the old rating system and authorities would normally have planned for them. At the last year of the old system it would have been appropriate to make provision in the accounts for that year for the estimated costs of late rating adjustments expected to arise in future years. It is recognised that it would have been prudent and proper practice to do so. We understand that many authorities did just this. In such cases these refunds now will have no effect on budgets or charges.
But we have recognised that in certain cases the costs associated with these late rating adjustments will affect budgets and charges, and the circumstances may be such as to warrant special assistance for the authorities concerned. We have said that where authorities are now facing budgeting difficulties, perhaps because the scale of the adjustments is greater than could have been foreseen, we are prepared to consider granting a direction enabling the authority to capitalise the costs associated with these adjustments. And, in the case of inner London, we have said that we would be prepared to grant such directions to the boroughs enabling them to capitalise that part of the London Residuary Body levy which is attributable to these costs, since the boroughs are now facing an increase in the LRB levy because full provision for these costs was not made in the final accounts of the Inner London Education Authority.
We consider that the action we have taken is appropriate. It means that the costs remain to be borne locally. The noble Lord's amendment would mean that the national taxpayer picked up the bill. We believe that this would not be the right course. In essence, the authorities have received amounts from ratepayers which in a sense were overstated. The authorities are now having to refund certain of these amounts. The amounts involved will depend in large part on the authorities' own decisions about the level of their rates for the years concerned.
1526
Late rating adjustments is a local issue and it is right to deal with it locally. Given the action that we have already taken to enable authorities locally to deal with this issue, I hope that the noble Lord will not consider it necessary to pursue this amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. I have heard rumblings of unhappiness in the London Residuary Body as a result of what has emerged. I understood my noble friend to say that the London boroughs concerned had recognised that such difficulties would exist and had made provision for the possibility that they might have to make substantial repayments, but that in the case of ILEA no such provision was made. Was that the distinction that my noble friend was drawing?
10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend is right.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: One is bound to comment that that is another indication of the inadequacy of that public authority. If the boroughs knew that they would have to do that, why did ILEA not know? Because ILEA has now been abolished and all this has come to light, the poor, wretched borough charge payers will have to pay the difference because of ILEA's incompetence. Is that not what it amounts to?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: By no means, no. ILEA has been abolished and therefore was not in a position to learn about what has happened since its abolition. Since that time there have been a number of court cases which have affected the valuation made and have allowed appeals which could not have been anticipated.
The particular case to which I wish to refer is the case of Addis v. Clement in which the courts found that the proximity of businesses to enterprise zones warranted a reduction in rateable values because of rate reliefs available in enterprise zones. Another case, the Chetnik case, has a bearing on the amount. The point about those cases is that they happened since the demise of ILEA. No amount of prescience could have allowed ILEA to make provision in advance.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord will know from his legal practice that where companies are facing litigation or the possibility of litigation, their auditors will advise them to make provision. I suspect that the London Borough of Newham and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which faced exactly the same problem in relation to their revenues, appear to have thought it wise to make provision. However, ILEA, because apres moi le déeluge, never thought that it would have to do that. The chickens are now coming home to roost and the wretched London ratepayers must pay.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that Members of the Committee will observe that the Minister did not make that charge. In fact, the London Borough of Newham has the worst single provision to make—approximately £5 million. Therefore, that example does not stand up, even in those terms.

1527
The Minister's reply was conciliatory, and the little bit of electioneering which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought it appropriate to go in for is entirely irrelevant. I know nothing from my legal practice because I am not a lawyer. I yield to the noble Lord in that respect but in this case, I believe he has his facts wrong.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question about what he said and about what Mr. Portillo said in his letter to the chairman of the ADA. He said that under those circumstances the Government:
"would be prepared to consider granting any request from the authority for a direction under section 40(6) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 allowing it to capitalise the cost of the refunds".
Would the authority be given the necessary credit approvals to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: Those local authorities experiencing budgeting difficulties as a result of the
1528
payments can and do apply to the Secretary of State for permission to capitalise expenditure. Such capitalisation of the expenditure counts against credit approvals. However, they can and do apply for supplementary approvals and Ministers are currently considering those applications.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a pending reply rather than a full reply. It means that although I propose to withdraw the amendment, we may have to return to this matter at a later stage. Will the considerations which Ministers are now giving be concluded before Report stage?
Lord Strathclyde: I cannot confirm that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case, we may well have to return to this matter on Report because there is a considerable injustice here. This matter will not simply go away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Grants to voluntary organisations]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 222:
Page 69, line 16, leave out from ("before") to end of line 18 and insert ("January 31st").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 222 returns to the subject of voluntary organisations. Clause 104 provides for a new subsection to be added to the Local Government Act 1985 and follows on the unhappy events experienced under that Act.
The clause allows the Secretary of State, by order, to set a date by which Section 48 schemes are to budget and to allow the Secretary of State to intervene in default of a budget being set by that date. The amendment proposes that a specific date be inserted in the legislation. The date I suggest is 31st January, though I shall come back to that in a moment.
The thrust of the amendment is to provide certainty on the face of the Local Government Act as it will be amended, rather than leaving the date to be a matter for further order. In that way voluntary organisations will know, from when this legislation is passed, what that long stop date will be.
I understand that local authorities may find the 31st January a little difficult. I hope that with the new tax we will be able to move to a regime where there is certainty earlier than there has been under the poll tax arrangements, and local authorities can set their budgets at an earlier date. With the moving goal-posts and late information to which we have all become so accustomed that we have all but ceased to complain —it has become almost a fact of life in local authorities—setting a budget by the end of January is perhaps an impossibility. However, Amendment No. 222 is a probing amendment in the sense that I should like to hear from the Government why it is thought to be inappropriate to provide a specific date. It may be that we can then return to the date itself. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: A similar amendment has already been fully debated in another place. I will, however, attempt to offer the Committee further reassurance of our intentions in this matter by recapping on the points made in another place.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, Clause 104 is designed to ensure that where local authorities operate a joint scheme to fund the voluntary sector, a timely decision is reached on the budget well in advance of each financial year. It will allow the Secretary of State to set a date by order after which, if authorities in a scheme fail to agree upon a budget, the previous year's level will be deemed to apply. The amendment would place on the face of the Bill the date by which the local authorities must set their budgets to ensure that expenditure is not deemed to be the same as in the previous year.
Perhaps I may first say that I do not disagree with the date suggested by the noble Baroness. The advice received from those most closely involved with the London boroughs grants scheme and the local authority associations supports the noble Baroness's choice of 31st January as a suitable date, and that would certainly be our first choice. However, we will, as is usual, be consulting on the detail of any order
1530
that is made under the new power before a final decision is made. To place a rigid deadline on the face of the Bill not only removes the right of those most directly involved to be consulted on the date but also would serve to reduce the flexibility and effectiveness of the measure for several reasons.
There are certain variables that will need to be taken into account when we come to set a date under the new power. We will need to balance the requirements of the voluntary sector against those of the constituent authorities. Voluntary organisations —quite understandably—need to have some idea at a fairly early stage of the levels of funding that will become available for their forward planning; on the other hand, local authorities require time to weigh up the merits of the various demands upon their resources. Those are factors that could vary from year to year. What may seem to be an appropriate deadline in 1991 may be unsuitable in subsequent years. By putting a date on the face of the Bill we would be restricting our flexibility to change that date other than by primary legislation.
It is also necessary to take into account those Section 48 schemes which are operating quite satisfactorily in some of the metropolitan counties. We see no reason at present why this new device should be applied to them also. This is not to say however that it would not be applied if the need should arise. If that should become the case, Clause 104 as it stands does not inhibit the scope for the Secretary of State to set by order a date which is quite specific to each scheme. If the date were actually in the Act itself we might find that we could not provide those local authorities concerned with a deadline appropriate to the circumstances of their scheme. In short, the device which was designed to aid the budget-setting process would instead be hindering it.
I would therefore urge Members of the Committee to see that there are very real advantages in maintaining the flexibility of this provision. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to reconsider in the light of the thinking which I have outlined.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the Minister tell us whether under these regulations there will be a possibility of imposing some improved conditions on the London boroughs' grants? For funding to be joined it should mean that the body being funded is working in several boroughs. At the moment there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. Two boroughs are enough to ensure that funding can be received. That is often very much to the disadvantage of a great number of other boroughs which do not benefit at all. Within the London boroughs great consideration has been given as to whether three or even four boroughs should be using the services of a particular body for it to be jointly funded, as opposed to the local authority directly funding anything that falls within its own borough.
Earl Howe: My noble friend has raised a very good point. I wish to take that point away with me for my honourable friend the Minister responsible for local government to consider.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That has nothing to do with the amendment, which is about the efficacy of any scheme. In any event, the noble Baroness is reverting to the difficulty which, as she knows, we had with the GLC in deciding what are local needs and those which we used to call "sub-regional needs". That does not affect the date for budgeting.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The reason why it affects the date is because that has been one of the most difficult and delaying factors.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall be very happy to have a debate about a strategic government for London. That is a matter which has been raised in the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I suspect that other Members of the Committee would not feel that that suggestion gave me any Brownie points at this time of night. I take the point that the noble Earl made. The underlying thrust is for certainty that the date will be early. I do not dispute the validity of consulting with those who are concerned. Perhaps I can use this matter as an opportunity for saying that consultation can move ahead. Whatever is said, they then know the situation. That would satisfy a great many people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 223:
Page 69, line 23, at end insert:
("(2) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that on the day of making an order under this section the general level of prices is greater than at the time that approval was given or was deemed to have been given in the previous financial year he shall increase the total expenditure by a percentage by which the general level of prices is greater than it was at the time that approval was given or deemed to have been given in the previous financial year.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the same clause of the Bill. The clause is an attempt to stabilise the funding arrangements for voluntary organisations. As currently drafted, the Secretary of State can set a budget which will be pegged to the previous year's absolute expenditure. It is a matter of common sense—perhaps it is even more pointed than that—to voluntary organisations whose absolute expenditure is very frequently at the absolute minimum. They are acutely conscious of the real cuts which result when an inflation-linked budget is not agreed for the following year. This amendment is to make provision for the Secretary of State to increase the scheme's budget by the amount of inflation in order that the scheme for one year can be an accurate reflection of it in the previous year. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is an important amendment which my noble friend has tabled. We regularly have public spending and local authority grants arranged in terms of forecast inflation. I can recall a question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, the first year the poll tax was in operation, asking what inflation figure had been calculated in making the revenue support grant. At the third attempt the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was induced to answer "3.8 per
1532
cent.". The actual figure of inflation at that time was 8 per cent. That was a considerable difference and was not, in fact, level funding in real terms.
If my noble friend's amendment were on the books Ministers would be saved a great deal of time and effort arguing that this is level in real terms and having the exchanges of "Oh no it isn't", and "Oh yes it is". The amendment would save us a lot of trouble and I hope that the Government will consider it.
Earl Howe: As I have already said, the purpose of Clause 104 is very clear. It addresses the problem that has arisen, in London particularly, over setting the annual budget for the joint schemes which provide funding for London or metropolitan county-wide voluntary organisations. The clause, therefore, provides a mechanism to ensure the timely setting of the annual budget for such schemes, and no more.
Quite rightly the clause does not put the onus on the Secretary of State to decide what a scheme's level of expenditure should be. The decision remains with the local authorities themselves. If they wish to adjust expenditure so that it takes into account any general rise in costs from the previous year then it is for them to agree that during the course of their budget-making process. For example, in London this year, the boroughs have already agreed the budget for their 1992–93 scheme at a level which is some 4 per cent. above last year's expenditure; and that is much in line with inflation.
Had Clause 104 been in place it would not have fettered the boroughs' discretion as far as setting a budget that takes account of inflation was concerned. If, however, they had been unable to reach agreement by the deadline set, and the livelihood of the organisations which they support had been endangered, then the mechanism in Clause 104 would have provided a safety net for the voluntary sector.
I do not see it as the Secretary of State's role, in the absence of a decision by local authorities themselves, to set spending levels that are higher than were agreed for a previous year. However, if local authorities themselves can justify increased expenditure that is a matter for them to decide. Clause 104 does not alter that position.
Given that explanation and assurance I would hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The point of this amendment is to ensure that the budget is the same in real terms as the previous year; not to provide a higher budget but one which in spending power is the same as for the previous year. It is perhaps a little late to pursue this matter. I am sorry to hear the response because it is not suggesting anything more than the noble Earl has described. However, I will at this hour beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Bromptonmoved Amendment No. 224:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:

1533
("Funding for independent advice agencies
.—(1) Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 (provision of information etc) shall be amended as follows.
(2) There shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) A local authority shall provide such financial assistance as is necessary to ensure reasonable provision by independent advice agencies to individuals of—

(a) information and advice concerning those individuals' rights and obligations; and

(b) assistance, either by the making or receiving of communications or by providing representation to or before any person or body in asserting those rights or fulfilling those obligations.

(2B) In subsection (2A) above an "independent advice agency" shall be defined in regulations.
(2C) After consultations with such persons as he thinks fit, the Secretary of State may by order issue guidance as to the meaning of reasonable provision in subsection (2A) above.
(2D) The Secretary of State shall after consultations with the local Government Commission designate local authorities for the purposes of subsection (2A)." ").
The noble Lord said: I regret that this amendment has come on at such a late hour, but it is worth putting before the Committee so that I shall have the answers of the Front Bench on the record. Perhaps we can then pursue the matter at a later stage.
This amendment is a new clause and it is designed to provide statutory provision for the voluntary bodies that advise citizens; that is, not only the citizens advice bureaux but also the National Consumer Council, the law centres and the Law Society. All these voluntary bodies are totally non-party political and serve the community with a corps of professionals; a vast number of unpaid voluntary advisers who give an unparalleled service to the nation at unparalleled value because of the voluntary effort. It is the cheapest form of advice that can possibly be available to citizens. It must help central government and local government enormously when their citizens' problems are being sorted out in this efficient and cheap way.
I illustrate the problems from the point of view of the citizens advice bureaux. The service has over 1,000 bureaux and extensions. It handles over 7 million inquiries a year. It is active in all the main important spheres that affect all of us, and often it is the most impoverished of our people who need the help most over employment, debt, and of course, the community charge and social security.
The citizens advice bureaux are financed by grants from local authorities. There are some central grants, but primarily they are financed by grants from local authorities. Therefore, they are immensely dependent for their core funding on local government. The quality and coverage of the bureaux reflect, of course, the funding. If they are not adequately funded then inevitably their services have to contract. There is a sorry tale of contraction already, and the purpose of this amendment is to see that that is put into retreat and that the funding will be sufficient for adequate advice locally.
Some local authorities have had to reduce funding as a result of charge capping. That will not be a surprise to anyone. But it means that local advice to citizens has been reduced, and sometimes extinguished. Over the past year the loss is the equivalent of some 20 or 25 full-time posts. That affects a large
1534
number of voluntary people who rely on the core of the salaried posts. At least three bureaux have closed, or are about to close, and several more are to reduce their services drastically because they are already overloaded.
Some people think—and the citizens advice bureaux are with them—that the demand for their services is going to grow. Certainly there is growth in consumer debt, and I suppose that is a function of the recession. Until the recession goes into an upturn that is going to grow, and the citizens advice bureaux and others will not be able to cope with the growth of consumer debt. I say this—and it is important—because, of course, their work is demand led. They would not be asking for more money unless they found themselves incapable of meeting the demand.
They are finding that the demand is growing. Of course, it grew with the poll tax. However, the poll tax is on its way out and the Government hope—and I am sure the citizens advice bureaux hope—that the demands for elucidation of that Act and advice on it will decrease. We do not know whether that will be so with the coming of the council tax, but demand certainly will not diminish. There will be at least the same demand and the funding from the councils is not sufficient to meet current demand; and, as I say, it is demand led. I could give instances all over the country, from London to Wales and up in the North, but I shall not do so.
The citizens advice bureaux are strong supporters of the concept of the Citizen's Charter—so am I—but they feel that if the Citizen's Charter is to become effective, a very large number of extra inquiries will be made to the bureaux. In anticipation of that increase in demand, there is a very strong case for proper funding. Because most of the funding has traditionally been provided locally, they feel—I feel very strongly with them—that there should be some central provision which enjoins local authorities to fund them. One aspect of this matter is that, if they provide their services—as they do—equally throughout the country, in accordance with demand, it would be most unfair if good councils properly fund them and bad councils do not. So there is a strong case for a central direction to local authorities to fund them uniformly.
In conclusion, I stress not only the cost-effectiveness of this service but its real value for money. The unpaid help is organised in a way which is unparalleled in other countries. It is used by the citizens because it is visibly and clearly independent of the state. They know that they will not get advice from those in authority; they will get advice which could be given to them by any expert, if they had enough money to pay for it. Instead they can freely approach the citizens advice bureaux at the grass roots, just around the corner, and know that they have a friend. That is most important to all citizens, whether well funded or near the bottom of the heap. Although the hour is late, I commend the amendment for the consideration of the Committee and the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the basis that this is a probing amendment, I welcome it as an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the citizens

1535
advice bureaux, and indeed—assuming that the amendment, by referring to independent advice agencies, is not confined to the citizens advice bureaux —to the many other independent advice agencies which exist, notably the neighbourhood law centres, which I take it will come under the scope of this clause.
I am bound to say that I have difficulty with an amendment which provides that the Secretary of State shall lay down the way in which councils shall fund voluntary organisations of this kind. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether the network of citizens advice bureaux is a universal network. I know that years ago, when I was better informed about the London Borough of Haringey, we took a deliberate decision—not in any disrespect to the CAB—that we would have a paid for and funded advice service available at a large number of council offices; that is, they would be housed in places to which people came when they needed advice. We took quite exceptional steps to make sure that the advice was independent of the council services and could therefore be critical of council services. So we did not have a CAB in Haringey. I do not know where the clause would leave a borough such as Haringey which made other provision than through an independent advice service.
It may be that the difficulty is overcome by the funding of neighbourhood law centres, which would be covered by this clause. However, I am very nervous indeed about the idea of the Secretary of State defining in detail the way in which a local authority should be obliged to fund agencies of this kind. After all, the financial pressures on local authorities are great. They are threatened by capping and they have an increasing number of statutory duties. They have to make judgments themselves about the way in which they want to see these services funded.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The amendment is well intentioned, but I am strongly opposed to it. I support the idea that independent advice should be available. I think very highly of the citizens advice bureaux and what they do. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct to say that they are not everywhere. However, they do not suit everywhere. In some parts of Westminster, for example, neighbourhood aid centres became the vogue and the citizens advice bureau had to close because it was no longer needed. In other parts, however, the citizens advice bureaux are hugely successful. In Paddington, there are neighbourhood law centres.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about local authority resistance to being told what to do with their money. The local authority must have the freedom to determine where it spends its money. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is correct. An enormous amount of work is done without charge. Local authorities fund and continue to fund the voluntary organisations because those organisations supplement in terms of time and money—some raise funds as well —the work done by local authorities. It means that a small amount of council money goes a long way in providing a service. If, on the other hand, local
1536
authorities discover that they are obliged to give the money but that people are doing nothing more than the councils would like to do themselves, many councils will prefer to do it themselves.
Every year the London Boroughs Grant Committee funds an enormous number of general advice bodies. More than 90 groups are funded at a cost of £4.4 million a year. The committee provides funds under the headings: general bodies, legal and advice centres, youth rights and justice, gay and lesbian groups, women's groups, prisoner support and so on. In addition, 86 ethnic minority and specialist groups are funded at a cost of £2.5 million. The money is certainly being given and given on a large scale. The citizens advice bureaux are also listed.
The terms "such financial assistance" and "reasonable provision" are too open. Who will decide what is "reasonable provision"? What is "such financial assistance?" Fashions, needs and styles of advice change. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, bad debts are currently a problem. Financial counselling and debt counselling are important at the moment, yet one hopes that when times improve the need for such counselling will shrink. One should not embody in stone who will get a grant or what service will continue to be needed and demanded. The flexibility of voluntary organisations is marvellous. The local authorities are aware of that and are aware of the good value provided by voluntary organisations. They will continue to fund them but they should not be compelled in this way. I oppose the amendment.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness made some points to which we should pay attention but perhaps she made a little heavy weather of them. It is not, after all, the purpose of the amendment to direct local authorities to any single organisation. The central point of the amendment is the word "independent". That is the necessary point. Where that does not exist there is a genuine risk of a conflict of interests, and even if there is not a genuine risk of a conflict of interest there is sometimes a perception and a fear of a conflict of interest. There is a quality about independent advice which makes it quite valuable. I am well aware of the need for it because I am finding in the course of my teaching that an increasing proportion of my time goes on giving advice about questions such as poll tax liability, child support, occupation of the matrimonial home and so on.
To my shame, I confess that sometimes, even when I have sat through the whole of a Bill in this Chamber, I do not remember the precise purport of the individual subsections. I have to send the students to someone else for independent advice. It is often the citizens advice bureaux. I have never had anyone let down by them. Often, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, the independent advice is given by the neighbourhood law centre. One way or another, such people have to obtain advice.
No one has as yet mentioned the second part of the amendment, which provides for representation at social security tribunals. It is an important part of the amendment. We far too readily assume that people dealing with the social security system understand it.

1537
That is an optimistic assumption. The bulk of information one needs to know to keep up with the social security system is enormous. Even we here in the Chamber are often like Mr. Macmillan planning a railway journey with the aid of last year's Bradshaw.
I am sure that for a great deal of the time most of us tend to remember income support as last year's amounts and not this year's amounts. That part of the amendment also meets a real need.
The problem of funds is a real and acute one which has been mentioned already. In my local high road, the CAB has recently had a notice on the door saying that its hours of opening have been sharply reduced because of cuts in funding. The value of the CAB is recognised everywhere—by the Labour MP at his surgery on one side of the high road and by the Conservative MP on the other. They need it too. Being a Member of Parliament does not enable one to know everything. It does not make one an encyclopedia. Members of Parliament too need points of reference.
The pressure on local authority funding has been mentioned. It cannot have escaped the Government's attention how often people press for something to be made a duty of the local authority. At present local authorities have a power to fund advice centres; they do not have a duty. There is an increasingly widespread perception that what is not a duty does not get done. The point made about bad councils not doing something while good councils do strikes me as one of considerable importance. It is, after all, the actions of bad councils which mostly put people in the position where they need advice. There is a real problem here. The amendment is an attempt to address it. I hope that it will be regarded with sympathy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Earl struck upon a point that was going through my mind about the value to Members of Parliament of bodies such as citizens advice bureaux. Those of us who had surgeries recognise the multitude of problems that can arise. If there is a good CAB, people learn that they probably obtain better advice there than they do in the MP's surgery. MPs generally end up with matters where intervention is required. They do not provide a general advice agency.
I yield to no one in my admiration of the CABs. Often they provide a highly skilled, impartial and uncritical advice service. The philosophy which has increasingly characterised CABs is that of not criticising the manner of life of those who, for instance, complain about being in debt while puffing at a cigarette. The reaction of most people would be to think how silly that was. They would tell them to stop smoking. If the CABs did that people would not go to them. One must accept the clients as they are. The more one thinks about it, the more one realises how wise that attitude is. I, too, share the misgivings that have been expressed about the amendment for the reasons already given.
I do not think the duty should be imposed in this way on local authorities, not least because there are a variety of advice centres throughout the country, particularly in our cities. I have recently been seeking to help Network for the Handicapped, which is a legal
1538
advice centre for handicapped people, telling them how they can best pursue their rights and needs through the statutory and voluntary agencies. I am not sure where the centre would come in this proposal. It is in more than one local authority, outside as well as in London. Therefore it does not receive help from the London Boroughs Association.
The amendment concentrates on the bodies within a local authority area. But what happens to those outside? There must be a limit. One body may say, "We're so important that we ought to be funded". But there are others equally deserving which might be left out. While totally sympathising with the objective and having enormous admiration for the advice centres, I too have hesitation in supporting the new clause.
Lord Wise: My noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke of the London boroughs. The evidence of the CABs has shown that the need for advice and information is widespread throughout the country, not least in the rural areas. Being a countryman, I am worried about them. I feel that if, for any reason, local authorities have to reduce their funding to the independent advice bureaux, the rural areas get a smaller slice of the cake. It would be sad if, purely through lack of funding, the rural areas are not served by their local bureaux. The only way to safeguard them is, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate funding.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment would require local authorities to provide such financial assistance as is necessary—however that may be described—to ensure that independent advice agencies—again however they can be described—are able to provide information and advice about individuals' rights and assistance in asserting those rights. In other words it would cover not only the provision of information about such matters as, for example, the application of the Equal Opportunities Act to a person's situation, but also support and advocacy for that person if he or she needs to assert those rights before any court or tribunal.
In particular, here we are talking mainly about citizens advice bureaux. I think it right then that I should declare my own credentials in this area. As my noble friends may be aware, not only was I a member of the citizens advice bureau for 10 years in my own area, but for six of those years I served as its chairman —I say "chairman", not "chair"—I was also a member of the Eastern Area Policy Group of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux during that period. This amendment is therefore of particular interest to me. I agree, the association is a first class organisation and it has always saddened me that some local authorities went for a full, paid professional service when citizens advice bureaux in their own area were doing a good, highly professional job in a voluntary capacity.
However, it is not only in my personal capacity that I would acknowledge the importance of such advice centres. I speak as a member of a government who

1539
have been consistently enthusiastic about the CAB movement and its achievements. As the Committee will be aware CABs rely very heavily on volunteer involvement. This means that CABs represent excellent value for money, but it also means that it is crucial that the Government should provide a substantial level of grant aid.
This Government's funding of NACAB has, in fact, been very generous. Since 1979 that grant money has increased from £1.7 million to £10.5 million. Local authorities' funding for local citizens advice bureaux has also increased significantly.
We have not only demonstrated our commitment to the principle of advice services for the individual by maintaining a high level of funding for citizens advice bureaux. We legislated in 1989 to clarify the position of local authority funding of such agencies. Local authorities are, of course, key players in the finances of CABs and we wished to make it quite clear that local authorities were able to give such support. Thus Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 was amended.
This amendment would, however, take the power in Section 142 one step further by making it a duty for local authorities to provide that support. I cannot accept that it would be right for the Government to dictate to local authorities how they must use their resources. Each local authority has different demands on its finite resources. Local circumstances must dictate to a local authority where its priorities lie. Admirable though the work of a CAB may be, in some areas it may be some quite different type of voluntary organisation that requires local authority support more badly. It cannot be for central Government to require the local authority under those circumstances to fund a CAB, where the other organisation is clearly more in need. I am not pretending that these are easy decisions for local authorities to make, but it would be invidious for them to be made by those who are not involved at the grass roots. In fact local authorities have a good record of support for CABs; they have increased their core funding in England and Wales to £27.5 million in 1990–91. That is some £4 million more than the previous year and represents a 17 per cent. increase.
There is scope, too, for all local bureaux to follow the innovatory examples of other bureaux in negotiating longer-term contracts with their local authorities to reduce uncertainty from year to year over funding levels. My own local authority has established a three-year programme for its local citizens advice bureaux. Alternatively, local bureaux might consider working jointly with the local authority while retaining their independence and identity. Independence is important for citizens advice bureaux. We should also not forget some of the imaginative schemes that CABs have been developing in partnership with the private sector. I am thinking here, for example, of the involvement with the finance sector and major retailers on money and debt advice services.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, made reference to inquiries being on the increase. It is
1540
clear that inquiries on taxation—I think the noble Lord mentioned taxation—and debt counselling in particular have certainly increased substantially between 1989–90 and 1990–91. But this is offset by large decreases in other areas of inquiry. Overall, the level of inquiries has not shown such a sharp increase. Inquiries on tax and duties only make up some 5.4 per cent. of the total number of inquiries which increased over the same period by just 2.1 per cent.
We have heard a great deal about closures of CABs. We only have hearsay evidence that CABs have been closing. Out of 1,346 outlets, including 712 main bureaux, three have closed of which two are in London and one in the North-East. The noble Earl is quite wrong. He said that the provision would not mean that local authorities would have to fund specific organisations. I am afraid that it will be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State who shall and who shall not be funded. Adequate funding will be prescribed too. I am afraid that the noble Earl is quite wrong. The prescription will come from the centre to the local authorities. The assertion that good authorities fund and bad authorities do not is no argument for compulsion. I would argue that compelling local authorities to fund their advice centres would be counter-productive. There is a healthy and buoyant relationship between local authorities and their advice centres, and particularly between local authorities and CABs.
Another important thing that local authorities do which is an important part of their work in terms of value for money, effectiveness and economic service is audit checks on their voluntary sectors. It is important that if a voluntary organisation is found wanting and is not making good use of that grant in aid, it should be dealt with in a managerial way so that funding can be withdrawn or modified, or the voluntary organisation can be counselled by the local authority on how it will use grant aid in the future.
I believe that I have already mentioned that Haringey has resorted to paying full-time professionals rather than using the sound services of a professional standard that the voluntary sector provides. I believe that that is not the way to obtain the best value for money. To compel authorities in that way is quite wrong and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, which I consider to have been very constructive. I should like to begin by saying how extremely fortunate the people in the noble Baroness's area were to have enjoyed the benefit of her advice through their local citizens advice bureau. They must be sorely lacking it now.
I have received with interest all the criticisms which have been made from one side of the Chamber or another, which were accompanied by paeons of praise for the citizens advice bureaux. I said at the outset that the amendment was not concerned solely with citizens advice bureaux but with advice-giving bodies, and that includes neighbourhood law centres.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I also have misgivings about central government

1541
compulsion of local authorities in this regard. However, I am very glad to have raised the debate because the discussion has been so constructive. Nevertheless, I was puzzled that there was a great deal of destructive criticism in that it was the general opinion, quite rightly, that the amendment would not do. However, there was very little constructive criticism in the sense that we did not hear what citizens advice bureaux can do in the face of capping which results in their funding being diminished.
The figures which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned did not differ greatly from mine. Some citizens advice bureaux are about to close, although I may inadvertently have given the impression that they had closed. They are on the brink of closure but have been rescued from closure and are merely existing. I used the citizens advice bureaux to illustrate the straits in which such advisory bodies find themselves. Their services are demand-led and where there is no demand they cease to exist. I do not claim that a citizens advice bureau or any other advisory body should have a God-given right to exist anywhere, but in general such organisations ought to be supported. I am asking the Committee for constructive ideas as to how they should be supported.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that it is often the case that the worst boroughs have the worst services. That is largely because the boroughs do not fund the services. That is the problem which faces us: how are we to provide good advisory services in the areas which are worst served? If only for that reason I am very happy to have heard the views of the Committee and I shall be happy to collect further views, not only from Members of the Committee but also from the Government. I fully acknowledge that the Government are good friends of the citizens advice bureaux. If the Government can help us towards better funding of such advisory bodies I shall be most grateful.
In my view the amendment suffers from the fact that if central government directed local authorities to make payments to the advisory organisations the independence of that advice might well be questioned.
Is a noble Lord making a gesture? A noble Lord appeared to make a gesture, which I did not understand.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We cannot go beyond 11 o'clock this evening. There is business in the House tomorrow. There are still three amendments on the Marshalled List to consider. It would be very nice if we could consider them this evening.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I agree. I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 69, line 33, leave out ("two") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Baroness said: It is an amendment to Clause 105 which is the new provision affecting
1542
councillors who are in arrears in paying their poll tax. That requires them to disclose the fact, disqualifies them from voting and imposes penalties.
First, I make it entirely clear that we on these Benches do not condone non-payment of the poll tax. We do not condone any breaking of the law. However, I query whether non-payment for as little as two months is likely to be the wilful default that this section is aimed at. It cannot be entirely unfamiliar to Members of the Committee that some bills are not paid when they should be. Two months is not that long a period. I can envisage that many people simply by overlooking the matter will be caught by the provision. It may be a matter of regret that they fail to pay within two months. However, the penalties that are imposed are harsh. I suggest that they are an overreaction to the problem. The amendment extends the period of two months to 12 months. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There has been a great deal to be said on most of the amendments that we have heard today. They have been sympathetically debated. I find it difficult to say anything in favour of the amendment. I have awaited with high curiosity the arguments in its favour.
We have experienced a background—it is not implied in the amendment—of wilful non-payment of poll tax bills by members of local authorities and even advocacy of non-payment of poll tax bills by members of local authorities. One cannot escape that background in considering the matter. If everyone is sensitive to that, they will give priority to payment of their council tax bills so that they do not fall into arrears on the matter.
Nor are the penalties unduly savage in a personal sense. They do not involve immediate incarceration. They simply involve the non-ability to participate effectively at meetings involving calculation of council tax or related matters, or the exercise of functions under Schedules 2 to 4. There is no reference to Schedule 9. If I were amending the Bill, I would include Schedule 9 too.
I believe that it is an amendment which goes against recent experience. I should be sorry if it found support. In view of the helpful remarks which noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have made on the general issue, I hope that they will speak against the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment does not oppose Clause 104. It simply states that two months is a ridiculously short time. People can fall behind in payment for two months by being in hospital, being away, or for many reasons. I support the amendment purely on practical grounds.
Lord Strathclyde: It is not a vindictive provision. First, after declaring that they are in arrears those non-paying councillors will still be able to speak at meetings. They can still represent their electorate. Secondly, if proceedings are taken against them for not declaring their arrears, they will not be liable to be fined if they can prove that they did not know they were in arrears, for instance, if they were in hospital,

1543
or the bank failed to honour a standing order. Thirdly, in exceptional cases they will also still be able to apply for the Secretary of State's dispensation to vote.
If we carry the amendment it would mean that councillors in arrears could vote on all issues, including financial issues, throughout the year during which they were not paying their tax. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry that the spirit in which I moved the amendment was not clear to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of another situation; that a bank may, by mistake, fail to honour a standing order or that direct debit arrangements may go wrong.
I am simply posing an over-reaction to a situation which I do not condone or support. The motives behind the amendment I shall leave to be judged by those in the wider world. Non-payment is not to be encouraged. However, the penalty and the provision should always be in balance with the bill that is being addressed. I think that this provision is severely out of balance. However, as it is now precisely eleven o'clock I had better beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 224B:
After Clause 105 insert the following new Clause
("Void properties of housing associations
.—(1) Any property shall be an exempt dwelling for the purposes of section 4(2) to this Act if, notwithstanding that it is not of a class prescribed by order by the Secretary of State under that subsection, it falls within subsection (2) below.
(2) A property shall be a property to which subsection (1) above applies if any of the following criteria applies—

(a) it is unoccupied property which requires major repair works, other than structural repair works, to render it habitable, including unoccupied property with respect to which less than six months have elapsed since the day on which such repair works were substantially completed; or

(b) it is unoccupied property which is awaiting sale of the freehold or leasehold interest to an individual; or

(c) it is property which is furnished and awaiting letting and which has been unoccupied for less than 6 months;

and if, in the case of a property falling within paragraphs (a) or (b) above, it is owned by a registered housing association or, in the case of a property falling within paragraph (c) above, it is owned by such an association or a public sector landlord within the meaning of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985").
The noble Lord said: This is a complex amendment on which I should make a 12-minute speech, but I shall not. The draft council tax exempt dwellings order is most complex. It has classes from A to N of dwellings which may be considered to be exempt from the point of view of council tax. This amendment seeks to extend those classes in a very minor way in order to ensure that they cover the conditions of properties of registered housing associations. Paragraph (c) covers other public sector landlords within the meaning of the 1985 Housing Act.
We seek to extend class A to include eligible repair works which are not structural. In class C we seek to
1544
extend the six-month unoccupied period to include unoccupied property awaiting the sale of the freehold or leasehold interest to an individual. Again in class C we seek to remove the substantially unfurnished criterion and extend it to property which is furnished and awaiting letting and which has been unoccupied for less than six months.
They are minor changes, but they make the draft order fit in better with the needs and conditions in particular of registered housing associations. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government intend to exempt unoccupied dwellings undergoing structural repair until six months after the repairs are completed, providing that they remain unoccupied. The amendment refers to major repairs other than structural repairs. The noble Lord may have a point here; I promise that we shall consider it carefully as we prepare the exemption regulations. I believe that this is a matter better dealt with in regulations than on the face of the Bill.
The second class of dwelling is unoccupied property owned by a housing association awaiting sale. On the assumption that such property would be unfurnished it would be exempt under the Government's proposals for six months. Again the Government's proposed exemption is not restricted to dwellings owned by housing associations. I think that it is reasonable to impose a maximum period for which the exemption should apply; once the six months have elapsed I would expect many of the properties concerned to have been sold.
The final exemption is one for furnished dwellings owned by housing associations and public sector landlords which are unoccupied awaiting letting. The Government propose to exempt such dwellings only if they are owned by charitable bodies. Other housing associations and public sector landlords will be treated in the same way as private landlords: council tax will be payable, but there will be a 50 per cent. discount because the property is empty. I do not believe that there is very much between us. I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I have said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree that it is better that this matter should be dealt with by regulation. I am grateful for what the Minister said about paragraph (a). I am not sure that I understand what he said as regards paragraph (b). I am sorry that he did not feel able to go further as regards paragraph (c) because I do not see why housing associations should be treated differently from other charities. After all, many housing associations are registered charities. I am sure that the housing association movement will read the Minister's reply with care. If necessary, we shall return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 106 to 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clauses 113 to 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Savings and transitional provisions]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 225ZA:
Page 79, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("this Act and the repealed enactments shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference in this Act to those Acts were a reference to those enactments;

(b) any reference in this Act (except paragraph 4 of Schedule 9) to either of those Acts, or to any provision of those Acts, were a reference to the corresponding provisions or provision of those enactments;

(c) subsections (1) to (7) of the section set out in paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to this Act were substituted for subsections (8A), (8AA) and (8B) to (8F), and subsection (11) of that section were substituted for subsections (8G) and (8H), of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1986; and

(d) subsections (8) and (9) of the section so set out were substituted for subsections (5A) and (5B), and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (10) of that section were substituted for paragraph (c) of subsection (6), of section 21 of that Act.

( ) The provisions of any regulations or orders relating to council tax benefit which—

(a) are made before the commencement of the Social Security Acts; and

(b) are expressed to come into force after that commencement,

may refer to any relevant provisions of those Acts rather than to the corresponding provisions of the repealed enactments.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 225ZB
1546
Page 79, line 17, after ("above") insert:
(""the repealed enactments" means the enactments repealed by the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 79, line 28, after ("87,"), insert ("90A,")
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to the substantive Amendment No. 228C. These minor amendments would ensure that Caldey Island would now also be included within the district of South Pembrokeshire for council tax. While it may have been interesting to save the community charge from total extinction in one corner of the British Isles, it is appropriate that Caldey Island should be included within the scope of the tax. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  IRAN: TANKS
  IRAN: TANKS
  FORMER SOVIET NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  FORMER SOVIET NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  MR. LORRAIN OSMAN
  MR. LORRAIN OSMAN
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: MILITARY ATTACHE
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: MILITARY ATTACHE
  GAS SUPPLY SYSTEMS: PIPE-LINES ACT
  GAS SUPPLY SYSTEMS: PIPE-LINES ACT
  MoD FILM AND PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS: FUNDING
  MoD FILM AND PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS: FUNDING
  MoD FILM AND PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS: CATALOGUE
  MoD FILM AND PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS: CATALOGUE
  SERVICE PERSONNEL REDUNDANCY PROVISIONS: VACANCY NOTICES
  SERVICE PERSONNEL REDUNDANCY PROVISIONS: VACANCY NOTICES
  SOCIAL FUND: YORK UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
  SOCIAL FUND: YORK UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: ALLEGED BREACHES
  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: ALLEGED BREACHES
  EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS: DIOCESAN APPLICATIONS
  EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS: DIOCESAN APPLICATIONS
  THE PRISON ESTATE
  THE PRISON ESTATE