I have a brief statement to make.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, submitted to me his resignation from that office and also, therefore, from the office of Deputy Speaker of the House.

I am convinced that the House would like to express its deep and sincere gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for the distinguished and honourable way in which he has served our House.

The hon. Gentleman has the record since the war: as a Deputy Speaker, he has served us for 6 years and 3 months, which is longer than any other Deputy Speaker; he also served for 11 years as a member of the Panel of Chairmen.

I believe that he has maintained the highest traditions of this Chair. His impartiality, his courtesy and his friendliness have put us all in his debt. On behalf of the Deputy Speakers and myself and, I think, the whole House, I want to place on record our sense of gratitude for the service that he has given.

May I associate myself with those words of yours, Mr. Speaker, and say on behalf of the whole House, I am certain, that my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) has discharged his responsibilities as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and as Deputy Speaker with dignity and understanding and has earned both the respect and the affection of hon. Members everywhere?

I beg to move,

That the right hon. Ernest Armstrong be appointed First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and that Mr. Paul Dean be appointed Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you feel it appropriate at the commencement of Public Business for the House to take happy note of the safe arrival of the Pope on these shores and to wish him a most warm welcome to this United Kingdom and a successful and peaceful visit here.

Although it is not strictly a point of order, I know that everyone hopes that the visit will be crowned with blessing.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise in the House this morning the activities of the Unification Church. For some time now, I and other hon. Members have been pressing for some inquiry into the workings and operation of the Moonies.

The activities of the Unification Church were first drawn to my attention some three years ago when a young Durham university student, whose parents lived in my constituency, fell into the clutches of the Moonies while travelling in America. He was taken to one of their camps in California. I saw all the distress, anguish and despair of his parents, and I was shocked by the difficulties that they encountered in seeing their son, even though they went to California a number of times.

As I started to make inquiries, I was amazed at the size of the problem and at the numbers of people involved. In the last three years I have had letters from over 400 families from seven different countries, and I have talked to a small number of ex-Moonies who had experience of living in Moonie camps. I have met those in America who specialise in helping parents to retrieve their children from the Moonie organisation and who try to return them to family life. The size of the problem is much greater and more disturbing than most people realise.

At Prime Minister's Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister if she would

"give some thought to the anxieties and sufferings of many families due to the growth of religious sects"

in this country, and the Moonies in particular, and whether she would consider setting up

"a Royal Commission or some form of inquiry to investigate their entry, their activities, their fund-raising methods and their charitable status in the United Kingdom."

In her reply, the Prime Minister said:

"I note that my hon. Friend is obviously very concerned about the activities of the Moonies, as indeed are many of us. He will be happy to know that the Charity Commissioners are reconsidering charitable status. The Attorney-General has also considered what action might be appropriate to take in relation to trusts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has asked his officials to examine the evidence as presented, as far as it relates to mental health and family life. These are three very positive things that are already taking place. I shall, of course, consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion with regard to the other matter."—[Official Report, 21 May 1981; Vol. 5, c. 415.]

It is now a year and a week since that statement was made.

On 20 January this year, the Prime Minister wrote to me stating that she had been in touch with the Home Secretary, and she continued:

"I fully appreciate your concern at the length of time this matter is taking. I believe the Chief Charity Commissioner has already said to you that the Charity Commission are equally anxious to see this matter resolved and have worked on it with all possible speed. The current position, as you know, is that the Commission are considering the Attorney-General's formal application for the charitable status of the Unification Church to be reviewed. To help them in this task, the Commission need to have detailed particulars of the evidence which led the Attorney-General to make his application. Those they need will inevitably take some time to provide, since they involve, among other things, re-examining the complete transcripts of the six-month libel trial which finished in April last year. The Attorney-General's Office is giving this as much priority as possible, but it is a major task and you will appreciate the importance that they should get it right, not least because the decision which the Charity Commissioners ultimately take may be subject to an appeal in the High Court. It is for these reasons, arising from the nature of this particular case, that the matter has taken so long and not, I believe, because of any defects in the law or the procedures arising from it."

On 7 April 1981, a number of us from both sides of the House visited the Charity Commission and met the then Chief Commissioner, Mr. FitzGerald, to express our concern about the charitable status of the Unification Church. The chairman of the Charity Commission wrote to us on 8 April 1981 to say that he had been carefully studying the legal position, and that the Commissioners hoped to meet before Easter—that is, Easter last year—to look at the case again. He went on to say that he would be in touch with the Attorney-General's office and that he hoped that the outcome of the Attorney-General's consideration would help to restore matters one way or the other.

On 13 October 1981, the Chief Charity Commissioner wrote to me in reply to a letter I had sent to him expressing my great concern at the delays in a decision being taken, saying that he quite understood the views of Members of Parliament but that not a moment had been wasted by the Charity Commissioners since our meeting on 7 April.

The position now is that the new Chief Charity Commissioner, Mr. Peach, wrote to me on 30 April this year to say that he had been trying to get further information from the Attorney-General's office, and that it had invited him to provide further and better particulars of the grounds for his formal application for the removal from the register of charities of the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and the Sun Myung Moon Foundation. He added that as soon as it received the information requested it would consider the matter as quickly as possible.

I have quoted those statements and extracts from letters because I think they demonstrate the delay that is taking place in coming to some decision about the activities of the Moonies in this country. For those of us who have had to deal with many of the tragic cases of families who have been split up because of the activities of the Unification Church, the delays are very depressing and frustrating.

I have not only been concerned by the question of the Moonies enjoying charitable status in this country; it has to be said that they run a number of dubious fund-raising operations. They are generally discreetly hidden under names which are misleading. They have about 40 cover names, such as New Hope Singers, Ocean Fresh Limited, which has two trawlers in the West Country, United Family Enterprises, which raised over £400,000 in 1978, God's Light Infantry, and the Kensington Garden and Art Society.

The Moonies' fund-raising methods and corporate structure are complicated. People are often approached in the streets by youths selling literature, and it is often not apparent that they are Moonies. The American-based church claims to have millions of followers around the world, and it has had a rapid growth in this country. It has 100 centres in the United Kingdom. It has an impressive headquarters in the former Norwegian consulate in Lancaster Gate. It owns farms in Wiltshire, a former convent in Chislehurst, and a large country house in Dunbar. It claims between 1,400 and 1,500 full-time members.

It is interesting to note that since 1968, when the two charities—the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and the Sun Myung Moon Foundation—were registered, their income has soared from £10,000 to more than £1½ million in 1979, and there is little doubt that their income has probably increased substantially since then.

It is obviously in the best interests of the Unification Church to keep delaying any decisions in regard to its charitable status. I understand from the Attorney-General that, following the Associated Newspapers case, which has been taken to appeal, a hearing has been set down for 15 November this year. This, of course, will mean further delay, and I have little doubt that, if the case were to be lost on appeal, it might very well go to the House of Lords, with even further delays in a decision being taken.

When Mr. FitzGerald wrote to me on 4 March 1982, he said:

"I can quite understand your views and those of other Members of Parliament concerned. To say that the case proceeds at a snail's pace would be to insult the snail. However, the responsibility for this does not rest with anybody in this office, not even with myself'.

He then went on to set out the reasons for delay.

However, only last week, on the front page of The Times, it was reported that Sun Myung Moon was found guilty by a United States federal court of conspiring to avoid paying income tax on assets that he claimed belonged to the Unification Church, and a chief assistant was also found guilty. At least the American authorities are taking action against the Moonies. I believe that if the Unification Church lost its charitable status, it would have a considered effect on its financial position in this country. The state of Connecticut has disallowed Moonie fund raising.

When I first raised the point with the Prime Minister and suggested that a Royal Commission should be set up, I recognised that it would take a considerable time but hoped that we might make some progress. I hoped that the Home Affairs Select Committee would look into the activities of religious cults and make recommendations. I recognise all the difficulties that an inquiry would encounter. The organisation's charitable status, fund raising methods and systems of entry into the country should be considered.

This week I received an irate letter from a parent telling me that two weeks previously her son had telephoned from London and told her that he had married a Japanese Moonie girl on 15 March. The letter states:

"I asked him why he had not cared to write to me before the marriage. The answer was that they had been in a hurry to get married because if not the girl would have been deported from Britain. She had come on a tourist visa which was overstayed. She had got a prolongation, but now there was no other possibility. I am told that there are other Japanese moonies who did the same thing to escape the law and that British authorities would like to be informed about them. Apparently, there is a surplus of Japanese moonie girls."

She also enclosed a note about her son and his bride. The letter continued:

"Another thing he told me on the phone was that his business is called United Carpet Cleaners. He did not tell me the address. He is now giving his address as Lancaster Gate."

That is the Moonie headquarters. The letter concludes:

"It is a pity that our children are used in such a way. I am afraid they could be made to break the law in other ways and even much worse."

I shall send those particulars to the Home Office.

The United Carpet Cleaners employs Moonies. It is another front organisation. It cleans businesses, especially pubs, at night. It was set up in the winter of 1980–1981 to raise funds for the Moonie organisation.

Last year a spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dean of Windsor said that they would support an investigation into the activities of the Unification Church. Dr. Donald Coggan, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has said that the Unification Church is not a Christian organisation and is not connected with the ecumenical movement.

An organisation called FAIR—Family Action, Information and Rescue—includes relatives of Moonies. It has asked the Home Affairs Select Committee to investigate and set up an inquiry.

The Daily Mail libel case did a great deal to draw to the public eye the activities of religious cults. With so many young people falling into the hands of the Moonie organisation year in and year out, it is tragic that we sit and talk and allow it to continue to operate, enjoying certain respectability through its charitable status

Some organisations have taken action. I have been impressed by one or two universities that give leaflets to all new undergraduates warning them about the activities of Moonies in university compounds and of the dangers of getting involved. Aberdeen university has an excellent poster warning its new students of such dangers. It finishes by saying:

Don't be fooled. If in doubt, consult your minister or priest."

The French Government are highly worried about the Moonies' activities and are likely to take action in the near future. The Americans have undoubtedly started to put pressure on the organisation. Moon recently said that he was thinking of withdrawing the Unification Church from America and taking it to new headquarters in the Pacific. In this successful fund-raising operation large sums of money are made and some of the Moonies in America live in luxury on funds raised by Moonie workers. There is an article in The Times today dealing with the point.

I am worried about the lack of knowledge and understanding of some of the Moonies' activities. Many local councils are not aware of the cult's activities, although some now check all bookings for civic meetings placed by groups with religious-sounding names. They consult the local FAIR organisation so that they can carry out a policy of not letting premises to Moonie front organisations. There are still many people who do not know what the Moonies are or what they stand for.

When I started to raise the problem in the House I believe that some of my colleagues thought that the Moonies were a rock group. I say to my right hon. Friend that it is not good enough to let matters drift. Either the Home Office should set up an inquiry or the Home Affairs Select Committee should proceed without further delay to inquire fully into the activities of religious cults in this country. We owe it to the young to alert them and warn them of the dangers that can lie ahead.

I should like to add a few words to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson). In this country we tolerate and are amused by eccentricity. As long as it is within the law we see nothing wrong in one person taking another for a ride. If one person can con another that the earth is flat, so be it. The rest of us can have a quiet life.

We have law covering charitable status based on the assumption that certain organisations are for the public good. It provides for privileged tax treatment at the public's expense, in the belief that that is to the public's overall benefit. We have a Charity Commission to decide whether an organisation satisfies the criteria. If an argument arises from that ruling a decision can be made in the High Court. That sounds simple and straightforward.

We are discussing an organisation about which there has been maximum controversy. It has caused great unhappiness amongst many families. Many of its activities are questionable. One's doubts about it are increased when one reads the report about the leader of the organisation having been found guilty of conspiracy to avoid paying income tax in the United States of America.

The Court of Appeal has still not considered the libel case that took place over a year ago and the charitable status of the Moonie church. That is not good enough. Given the concern that has been expressed about the Moonies, it is high time that decisions were made about their status.

There is a great deal of muddle about charity law. Reports and recommendations have been made on that subject. Action is needed by the Government to bring our charity laws up to date.

In the meantime I hope that my right hon. Friend will put maximum pressure on those involved to ensure that decisions are made at the earliest opportunity about the Moonies' charitable status.

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) for giving us the opportunity to debate the activities of a body that has caused a great deal of understandable anxiety. He described the situation in graphic terms. My hon. Friend has been to the fore in alerting the public to the need for wariness. The more that the public is sceptical and circumspect in its dealings with that and other fringe sects the fewer people will unwittingly be drawn to them.

Understandably, the theme of my hon. Friend's speech has been to inquire about action by the Government and others whose responsibilities bear upon the Unification Church. He referred to a number of specific areas and events, on which I shall respond. But I should first set the context of our approach to that and similar bodies. It has traditionally been the view in this country that people should be free to come together and propagate views that others may find misguided, provided that in doing so they do not break the law. Some organisations and views may be thought more questionable than others. But there is no obvious principle, other than whether the law is infringed, on which the Government can distinguish between them.

It is sometimes alleged that the activities of the Unification Church involve breaches of the criminal law. Where specific points are raised that fall to be investigated, we have taken necessary advice from the police. With only minor exceptions concerning street collections, the police have found little evidence of criminal activities by the sect or its adherents in this country. Were the police to receive further allegations they would investigate them most carefully.

I hope that my hon. Friend and others will recognise that to seek to take action on the ground that activities, although not unlawful, may be socially undesirable would raise major questions of liberty in our society. We must be careful that, in responding to anxiety, however understandable, about particular organisations or philosophies, we do not encroach on the freedom of organisation and expression, provided that they are exercised within the law. We must also remember that there is a limit to the measures that the Government can take, or ought to seek to take, to protect adults from themselves.

It is against these principles that we have considered the calls for an investigation into the activities of the Unification Church and other religious sects. As my hon. Friend reminded us, in May last year he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider whether a Royal Commission or some form of inquiry should be set up to investigate the church. As he says, my right hon. Friend explained in reply that she very much shared the worry about the activities of the church and that action was already in hand in respect of it. She said that it would be premature to institute further inquiries. That remains our view, since, as my right hon. Friend noted, we were taking account of each of the areas of anxiety to my hon. Friend. These areas are those of immigration, activities including fund raising and charitable status.

Immigration legislation is not used to prevent the propagation of religious beliefs provided that the law is not broken. But there is a firm immigration policy towards the Unification Church and other fringe sects. We have decided, and the church has accepted, that its overseas members who are subject to immigration control do not qualify as missionaries or ministers of religion under the immigration rules. They may be admitted as visitors if they satisfy the requirements of the rules. That enables them to come to the United Kingdom for an initial period of six months, provided that their maintenance is assured, and normally limits them to a maximum period of stay of 12 months. It prevents individuals from establishing themselves here permanently.

As for Mr. Moon himself, he has been advised not to travel to the United Kingdom without first seeking an entry clearance. If he were to apply for an entry clearance, it would be necessary to consider whether leave to enter should be refused on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good. Relevant information, from the United States or elsewhere, would be taken into account.

My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of other countries to members of the church. The Home Office is not at present aware of specific policy in respect of members of the church undertaken or planned by the French authorities. Any contrast with other countries must in any event take account of the possibility of different principles, as well as arrangements, not least in the matter of immigration. But in considering any suggestion that we are unduly benign, we might take account of reports that the church is in fact transferring its major operations in Western Europe from this country to West Germany.

As to marriages by members of the church here, I note that my hon. Friend will be sending the particulars of the cases to which he referred to the Home Office. For the present, it may be helpful for me to explain the general position. Any applications to remain here on the basis of marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies have to be considered in accordance with the immigration rules. These require that a man admitted in a temporary capacity should be allowed to stay only if, among other things, there is no reason to believe that the marriage was entered into primarily to obtain settlement here and the wife is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was born here or one of whose parents was born here. In the case of a woman admitted in a temporary capacity who marries a man settled in the United Kingdom, she should, on application, be given indefinite leave to remain.

As to people who are admitted here, when I began this reply to my hon. Friend I referred to the question of criminal activities by the Unification Church and its adherents in this country. I repeat that the police have found little evidence of such activity, but would carefully investigate further allegations.

My hon. Friend mentioned also the Prime Minister's reference to action taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services. Following the judgment of the High Court in April 1981 in the libel case brought by Mr. Orme of the Unification Church against the Daily Mail, my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services announced that he had asked officials to examine the evidence as far as it related to mental health and family life. I understand that officials in the Department of Health and Social Security have been examining the evidence. But, following Mr. Orme's appeal against the judgment, the matter is now effectively sub judice. I understand, as my hon. Friend said, that the appeal is to be heard in November. Once the legal position is clear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will no doubt consider in due course whether further action by him is necessary.

My hon. Friend devoted much of his speech to describing the consideration which has been given to withdrawing the charitable status of the two organisations linked with the Unification Church since the Daily Mail libel case last year. I am not sure that the former Chief Charity Commissioner is correct in implying that a snail would have progressed quicker. A great deal of work has been done on the case, but no decision has been reached. But that is not a matter of bureaucratic buck-passing.

The question of an organisation's charitable status is a matter, not of opinion, but of law. It is based on a categorisation formulated at the end of the nineteenth century which has been continuously elaborated and refined in case law and which continues to develop. Charitable trusts are established in perpetuity. To obtain charitable status, a trust must be shown to fall within one of the four heads of charity—the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, the relief of poverty and other purposes beneficial to the community. But once it is on the register of charities, it cannot be removed as a simple administrative action. It would first have to be established, as a matter of law, that the purposes of the trust no longer fell under any one of the four heads of charities.

Of course a trust may have very bad trustees, in which case the clear duty of the Charity Commission is to remove them and appoint others. To prove that its aims are not what the organisation claims them to be, and that they are not charitable in law, is another matter. It requires, to begin with, detailed evidence about the organisation. I cannot comment in detail on the case of the Unification Church. As I said, it has lodged an appeal against the decision in the Daily Mail case which will be heard in November, and is sub judice. But I do know that a great deal of time has been spent sifting through what is known about it and its activities in order to establish what would be relevant to consideration of its charitable status in this country. I understand my hon. Friend's impatience at this, but I am afraid there has been no alternative. He might like to remember that consideration of the Unification Church trust deeds last year without any additional evidence led the Commission to confirm its charitable status. Its trust deeds are immaculate.

I can also understand my hon. Friend's annoyance at the further delay caused by the Unification Church's appeal against the libel decision. Whether it is a delaying tactic or not, we cannot deny it that right, and he cannot reasonably expect a decision about its charitable status to be reached while the appeal is pending. For the reasons I have explained, the removal of the two trusts from the register of charities would be an exceptional step and one that would be likely to be challenged in the High Court. If they were to take any further action while this appeal is pending, it is likely that there would be an immediate challenge in the courts. It must be remembered that the trial and verdict of the jury played an important part in he history of the matter.

I have had to explain the legal complexities, and they are very real. I think hon. Members can, however, take some comfort. In my view the question of charitable status is considerably more important for charity law than it is, at this stage, for the church itself. Of course I understand the sense of public disquiet that the church should enjoy charitable status when more worthy organisations do not, but I feel that the practical benefits which it can give to the church are exaggerated.

Charitable status confers a number of benefits, of which two are relevant here. In the first place, it gives an organisation a seal of public approval of its aims, which must be of value when it solicits help. I find it difficult to imagine, however, that loss of charitable status will give the Unification Church a worse public image than it has now. Similarly, if it retains its charitable status I fail to see how its credibility will be restored.

Secondly, charities can enjoy valuable tax exemptions in relation to their income. Again, I would share the general dislike of subsidising an organisation such as the Unification Church from the public purse, but I must stress that charitable status does not guarantee tax exemption. It is only given to trusts that satisfy the condition that they should be established for charitable purposes only and thereafter that the charity's income is applied for exclusively charitable purposes. As hon. Members will, of course, appreciate I cannot comment on the tax affairs of any person or organisation. This information must remain confidential. I also cannot comment on my hon. Friend's question about any implications of the conviction for tax evasion of Mr. Moon in the United States.

My final reservation about the effects of the loss of charitable status is that I cannot see how it will prevent young people from joining the sect or persuade them to leave it. There is no evidence that it plays a significant role in attracting adherents or that its loss will act as a deterrent.

I hope it is clear from what I have said that the Government continue to take most seriously the concern about the Unification Church. Our approach is that the sect and its adherents here should be dealt with within the framework of the law and general policies on particular areas of activity. We believe it right for them to be put to those tests, and not to seek to distort the law or policy in ways that would undercut the principles of our society. It is, I believe, in part a measure of the correctness of this approach that the standing of the Unification Church in this country is so low, but that in any attempt to improve its image it cannot point to Government discrimination against it.

My hon. Friend suggested that the Select Committee on Home Affairs should conduct a full inquiry into the activities of all cults in this country. That, of course, is a matter for the Committee itself, and not one for the Government. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members are, no doubt, aware that the Committee considered this in 1980. It announced in December that year that it had decided not to launch an inquiry, but I imagine that the Committee would take careful account of requests from hon. Members that it might reconsider that decision.

For the Government's part I can, in conclusion, assure my hon. Friend and the House as a whole that we shall continue to think very hard about developments in respect of the Unification Church here, and are ready to take any action that is appropriate.

I welcome this opportunity to say something about the work of citizens advice bureaux and their important contribution to the needs of many people. The debate also gives me a chance to refer to the extra burden facing citizens advice bureaux as a result of economic and social factors mainly arising from the increase in unemployment.

The structure of the citizens advice bureaux in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—there is a separate set-up for Scotland—is a head office in London, 20 regional offices, and a network of about 720 local bureaux which give advice to people living in the local community.

The function of the head office is to support the local bureaux, advise them on changes in legislation and advise on how to deal with queries. It also provides support for staff training. In the head office, regional offices and local bureaux there are 334 paid full-time staff and about 900 part-time staff. These help and support the work of more than 10,000 volunteers. Surely that ratio of a fairly small number of full and part-time staff supporting, helping and controlling the work of a large number volunteers is to be welcomed, and encouraged, by the Minister.

Over the past 10 years there has been a major increase in the number of inquiries to citizens advice bureaux. Ten years ago there were about 1½ million inquiries a year in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. By last year the staggering total was 4½ million inquiries a year. The queries cover a range of problems and anxieties. However, the main headings are inquiries dealing with unemployment, social security, housing, personal inquiries relating to matrimony, divorce and child custody, and consumer queries.

My principal anxiety relates to the increasing burden on citizens advice bureaux as a result of the first two categories—unemployment and social security. About three years ago the Royal Commission on Legal Services said in its report:

"We have reached the conclusions that the primary need is for a competent and accessible national network of generalist advice or information to citizens on any problem".

The report recommended that

"The CAB should provide the basic generalist advice service"

and added that

"CAB should be financed out of public funds".

The Government clearly welcome the contribution of citizens advice bureaux because there are several Government leaflets on entitlements and services in which people in difficulties are recommended to go to their local citizens advice bureaux for assistance.

I said that inquiries currently number 4½ million a year. They can be broken down under main headings. There was a 50 per cent. increase in social security inquiries in 1981–82 over the previous year. Employment inquiries rose by 14 per cent. The total number of inquiries increased by 10 per cent.

In London there were just under 1 million inquiries. Last year social security inquiries increased by 60 per cent. over the previous year. Inquiries on employment increased by 35 per cent. The total number of inquiries increased by 17 per cent. There were more than 13,000 inquiries in Wandsworth last year and, compared with the previous year, those concerning social security increased by 46 per cent., as did the number about employment matters. The total number rose by 23 per cent.

It is fairly clear that bureaux help the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of the community. A survey of CAB clients in London boroughs in November last year and January this year showed that only about one-third of clients had jobs. Of those who were not working, more than half were claiming supplementary benefits.

Bureaux provide particularly important services to ethnic minority groups. In Wandsworth it is estimated that 40 per cent. of inquiries come from black and Asian people. The figure in Tower Hamlets is 42 per cent. and in Brent the proportion is 65 per cent. Most bureaux clients are on low incomes. It is estimated that in most London boroughs more than 30 per cent. of clients have incomes of less that £50 a week and the vast majority have incomes of less than £100 a week.

The increased pressures on bureaux stem from four factors—unemployment, recent legislative changes, increased pressure on other public services and the financial difficulties into which people have been falling increasingly in recent years.

It is obvious that unemployed clients have less money and an increased need for statutory support. The worst affected are those who were low paid, the disabled, single parents and those previously on fixed incomes. The consequence for CABs has been an increase in inquiries. In some inner city and depressed areas the increases have been quite staggering. I should like to quote some figures that are even more dramatic than those that I gave earlier. Last year, compared with the year before, inquiries in the West Midlands about social security increased by 115 per cent. and in Staffordshire they increased by 142 per cent.

In my borough of Wandsworth social security inquiries increased by 100 per cent. from October 1981 to October 1982, while housing inquiries rose by 53 per cent. and employment inquiries went up by 51 per cent. I appreciate that some of the extra burden in Wandsworth must be a consequence of Wandsworth council's closure of an effective network of law centres. People had to go elsewhere for advice and that imposed extra burdens on the local bureau.

When people have difficulties with their jobs or become unemployed, it is the function of CABs to give advice on employment protection, entitlement to reduncancy and the range of State benefits that may be available to clients. Let me quote an example from the southern part of the country. A man worked for six and a half years for a small decorating firm before receiving a letter from his employer saying that due to lack of work he was being temporarily laid off.

That man was refused unemployment benefit because, technically, he was still employed. As he was receiving no wages, he went to a citizens advice bureau for help in claiming supplementary benefit. That was a complicated problem and the man benefited from the advice of the CAB.

The second main cause of the increased burden on CABs results from recent legislative changes, including employment legislation, changes in sick pay arrangements and the new supplementary benefits scheme. A number of other legislative changes have taken place or are due to take place, such as the change to payment of child benefit monthly instead of weekly, the proposals for a unified housing benefit, the complicated changes brought about by the British Nationality Act and changes resulting from housing legislation. All those have meant that individuals have desperately needed advice and increasing numbers have turned to CABs for help.

I can give the House an example of the complexity of the problems that need help and advice. An unemployed man in the North of England, who was not receiving unemployment benefit, went to stay temporarily with his mother in law because she was ill. The local DHSS office included his home, which was temporarily empty, as a capital resource and the man's supplementary benefit was withdrawn. He could not sell his home because he intended to move back into it as soon as his mother in law had recovered from her illness or had been moved into hospital. He could not move her into his home because she was too ill. That is typical of the complicated problems with which CABs have been dealing in recent years.

The third main cause of the additional burden on CABs is the increased pressure on other public services, especially local DHSS offices. There cannot be an hon. Member who is not aware of the enormously increased burden on DHSS offices and the increasing number of complaints about difficulties in getting problems dealt with and clear statements about entitlement to benefits.

I understand that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who is to reply to the debate, is not responsible for that matter, but the problem is well known and is causing much anxiety. People go to their local CAB, if not straight to their Member, for help and advice. I do not need to go through all the difficulties that arise from the extra burden laid on local DHSS offices, which have not been given a compensating increase in staff to cope with the problems.

Cuts and changes in other services have also increased the burden on CABs. Jobcentres, unemployment benefit offices and local authority social service departments have all suffered cuts in the resources available to them and that has resulted in individuals having to go elsewhere for advice.

I can illustrate the problem by quoting the example of a case in south London that was handled by a citizens advice bureau. It concerned a financial difficulty and was so complicated that the interview with the client lasted between an hour and an hour and a half.

I have a word of praise for the Minister, because I know that in the current financial year he has increased funding for CABs nationally by 16 per cent. If I did not mention that, the Minister would do so. It is a good thing, it is much appreciated and it is useful. However, it is argued not that funds for CABs have been cut, but that the extra resources, some from the Government and some from local authorities, have not been sufficient to keep pace with the increased demand. That is my main argument.

About 60 per cent. of CABs receive less than £5,000 a year and 80 per cent. get less than £10,000 a year. The position is a little happier in London, although, of course, the burdens are much greater there. The consequence of inadequate funding is that CABs are open for fewer hours of the day than they ought to be. About half the citizens advice bureaux are not able to open for more than 20 hours a week and fewer than one in five are able to provide a full-time service. I have already mentioned the very small proportion of full-time staff and also the very small proportion of paid staff.

In some areas, about one in 10 of the local population go to citizens advice bureaux for help. In some parts of the country—the example of Camden has been given to me—the figure can be as high as one in three. This indicates an enormous potential demand. Further evidence of the demand for help is shown by those areas where new local offices have been established in recent years. In Bristol, there was a 30 per cent. increase in two years in the number of inquiries. In Sheffield, there was a 14 per cent. increase in inquiries in a five-year period following the opening of a new office. When a new office was opened in Leeds, the number of inquiries went up from 2,000 to 10,000 in six years. I could quote many similar examples from different parts of the country.

There has been a 16 per cent. increase in national inquiries to the head office. To forestall the possible comment of the Minister, I accept that in my area of Wandsworth there has been increased funding of local citizens advice bureaux by the local authority but this is partly in the nature of conscience money because of the enormous saving that has been made through cutting law centres. It is compensation for the closing of the law centres rather than any sign of good will on the part of the local authority.

The present level of funding to citizens advice bureaux nationally from the Government is, I understand, £5¾ million, which includes the increase to which I have already referred. Of this, about £1 million is used by the national organisation to channel money for particular and limited needs to local citizens advice bureaux. The conditions under which this is done are, I understand, the subject of an agreement between the national organisation and the Minister. The main responsibility for supporting the work of local bureaux does not rest with central Government. Nor does it rest with the national organisation which does not possess the resources. It rests with local authorities. The difficulty is that local authorities have been under such intense financial pressure that they have been unable to respond to needs and requests from local citizens advice bureaux.

I should like the Minister to consider two proposals. The first proposal, the more ambitious, is that the Minister should issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they give enough resources to their local citizens advice bureaux to meet increasing needs. That is perhaps the more optimistic request that I make. There is also a more modest one. Because of the variable response by local authorities to needs in their areas, and because of the pressure under which they are working, I should like the Minister to consider increasing the funding to the central citizens advice bureaux organisation so that more money is available to be given to local bureaux in circumstances of special needs or particular pressures.

I am not suggesting that there should be a complete change in the basis of funding from local to national level. Nor would I wish to give local authorities the excuse to cut the money to citizens advice bureaux on the basis that the Government will step in. Far from it. I am suggesting that additional resources should be made available, on carefully worked out criteria agreed with the Minister, when local bureaux face particular pressures and difficulties that might result in a reduction in their opening hours, or in their closure. I want the central organisation to be able to step in and to ensure that the service can be kept going, or to ensure that some additional resources are available to cope with a heavy extra burden.

I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. I think that he will agree that citizens advice bureaux provide a valuable and essential service for many people. It is important that when people go for advice they have some chance of getting it, and that the pressures on local offices are not such that people are turned away or are unable to get the help that they need.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on raising this topic. All hon. Members are aware of the growing requests and need for advice. Like the citizens advice bureaux, hon. Members have been aware over the years of the increasing number of people who have problems and want someone to share them and, if possible, to give advice or direct them on to the most appropriate service or authority for further action. Occasionally during debates on hon. Members' pay I hear the argument that the nature of the work has altered. Some old-fashioned hon. Members say that it is wrong to support the kind of welfare work that dominates so much of our time. This should give all hon. Members an insight into the attitude of the volunteers and the paid staff of the citizens advice bureaux who are as determined as hon. Members to give the most effective possible help to those in trouble or in need, whether that relates to their financial resources or to advice.

Hon. Members, especially those who serve on the Standing Committees of social security Bills, will understand the complexity of our social security network—the inter-relating benefits and the various complications in establishing qualification for help. All these matters, with others, are the daily work of the citizens advice bureaux. I do not intend to repeat the statistical information given by the hon. Member for Battersea, South. I pay tribute to the manner in which he and other hon. Members spend much time on individual case work requirements of constituents. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to one possible way in which the work of the citizens advice bureaux can be used to the advantage of the Government and of local authorities. Establishing the case for extra financial resources as and when available seems important.

I should like to believe that local authorities and central Government will monitor the changes and trend of cases brought to citizens advice bureaux. I recognise that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux issues a good deal of analysis to hon. Members which shows what work is done. I am not, however, convinced that various Government Departments and local authority departments take the remedial steps to enable more people to understand what they can do about their plight without having to go to citizens advice bureaux or other offices.

Th hon. Member for Battersea, South referred to the large number of poor people and members of ethnic minorities who seek help or advice. That illustrates the need to get more information to those people and illustrates the other side of the coin that people who are better off have improved access to remedial action or advice when they face problems. Everyone faces problems. It is a question of how many of us have the resources of knowledge or money to deal with them.

I should like to believe that local authority housing departments conduct a six-monthly review with citizens advice bureaux to see what action housing departments can take to alleviate, reduce and avoid the problems on which people seek advice from citizens advice bureaux. That would be a useful way in which citizens advice bureaux could argue for greater funding from local authorities. If it were possible to use the wisdom and experience of citizens advice bureaux to run the housing department more efficiently, the savings would be enormous. It would be possible to tighten up the housing allocation policy so that it became fairer and more effective. More homes would be occupied and there would be fewer voids in terms of property letting. That must save far more than any possible increased allocation to a local citizens advice bureau service.

The same argument applies to Government. Although I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister is speaking for the Department of Trade, his previous experience at the Department of Health and Social Security may lead him to allude in his reply to the experiments that are going on between citizens advice bureaux and local DHSS offices in using—I hope—computer terminals to see what benefits people are entitled to and how to spread that electronic help to people working in both the volunteer and the departmental sides of social security.

I should like to spend a moment on the family issues side of the work of the citizens advice bureaux. It is a matter that gets less attention than it should. I declare an interest here as chairman of Family Forum, a family organisation which brings together about 100 national and local voluntary organisations dealing with the various issues of family policies. It is important to use the experience of citizens advice bureaux and other local centres of advice and experience to try to make sure that what help is available in cases of family distress, disadvantage or handicap becomes part of the common culture and knowledge, and to bring to people's attention the fact that they should and can take earlier action to obtain reassurance, guidance or help. I realise that in every locality citizens advice bureaux are making referrals to child guidance clinics, the National Marriage Guidance Council and similar organisations, and to the various specialist bodies and statutory agencies which can provide someone to listen to problems, and often give practical help or advice. I hope that substantial extra recognition of the developing work of the citizens advice bureaux will make it possible for that network of resources to become better known and to be better spread throughout each local community.

I do not intend to go on as long as perhaps I should in developing this theme, because I understand that other hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate. However, I should like to spend the last few moments on developing the use of volunteers. Citizens advice bureaux have followed the line which was developed at about the same time as, for example, the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which has shown how a small amount of central and local government help has provided enormous benefit. I welcome the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in c. 389 of the Official Report of yesterday, 27 May, on increasing the opportunities for volunteering among the unemployed. It brings out a point that was implied by the hon. Member for Battersea, South that the more people are involved as volunteers in helping, the more can people who are part of the ordinary community, even outside the citizens advice bureaux office itself, help themselves and others. I feel strongly that the more we can help others, the more we are likely to help ourselves, and the more we can help ourselves, the more we shall be encouraged to provide assistance to others.

I look on the citizens advice bureaux network as one of the greatest developments in this country in the past 10 or 20 years. In my view, its work load will increase. Even as we become better off, I believe that its work load will increase, just as the work load on the National Health Service has increased as our material standard of living has improved. I welcome the initiation of this debate, and I hope that it will receive a favourable response not only from my hon. Friend the Minister but from local authorities throughout the country.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on introducing this debate. People outside do rot appreciate that it is limited to 45 minutes, and that I have only one minute to speak before the Minister rises. So may I say, in the briefest possible way, thay we on the Social Democratic Party Benches support the existence and enlarged activities of the citizens advice bureaux. In Yorkshire and Humberside, unemployment has doubled during the past two years. Not surprisingly, the number of unemployment and social security benefits has risen by 94 per cent. in the same period. Bradford has higher than average unemployment. The bureau there does a marvellous job. We want the Government to continue to look but more benevolently than at present at the needs of the citizens advice bureaux.

I am afraid that that is all that time allows me to say.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on bringing this important issue before the House. We were all interested to hear his extremely constructive comments and also the brief comments of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). We are well aware of the great amount of work that my hon. Friend has done in this connection and the tremendous activities that he has generated with Family Forum, which is a most important body.

I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Battersea, South. I am sympathetic to the points that were raised. Some of the impressive figures that were given show how the work has increased. A working group has been set up by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux working closely with the Departments of Industry and Trade to look into the subject of computers and to consider whether more use could be made of them. It is important that we should have a better idea of where the changes are taking place in the work to see whether, by looking at the information somewhat differently, we could increase the effectiveness and help that are given through the service.

Our citizens advice bureaux are a major national asset—the envy, indeed, of many other countries without a comparable system. As we have already heard, we have nearly 1,000 bureaux that are serviced by over 10,000 voluntary workers. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that they are run by a relatively small professional staff. I would accept the views of my hon. Friend about this relationship and the numbers of professionals and volunteers rather than those of the hon. Member for Battersea, South, because citizens advice bureaux are an excellent example of how a small number of professional people, properly trained and deployed, can run a large number of volunteers, who, of course, bring a rather different approach to their work. They do not have to do the work in the way that a professional has to do it. They bring a fresh and valuable approach. I see the citizens advice bureaux as a most desirable example of how the volunteer can work effectively with the professional. Moreover, a large proportion of the money that we provide centrally is spent on seeing that the professionals train the volunteers properly and that there are courses to provide the expertise that they need.

The dedication, competence and impartiality of the service are known to all who are in contact with it. All hon. Members know, through their own surgeries, how helpful the citizens advice bureaux can be and know of the interchange between the two. The bureaux offer free—that is important—and confidential advice on some 4 million inquiries a year. That is a tremendous contribution to the welfare of our community.

The hon. Member for Battersea, South rightly emphasised that the demands on the citizens advice bureaux are increasing. It is not only the crude total of inquiries that is increasing. There is also a good deal of evidence that the kinds of inquiries are becoming more complex. For example, financial problems are becoming more complicated and frequent. It is now quite a common experience for bureau workers to discover that what appears to be a straightforward problem, say an unpaid bill, is only the tip of the iceberg and that several other much more fundamental difficulties lie underneath for the family concerned.

It is the Government's recognition of the mounting burden of work as well as a warm respect for the service that has led us to increase Government grant-in-aid support for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The grant in 1979–80, under the previous Government, was £1·85 million. We increased it in the following year to more than £4 million. I was delighted that, shortly after taking up my present appointment, we were able to increase that amount again to £5·757 million for this year. During the whole period from 1979–80 to 1982–83, support for NACAB will have increased by over 100 per cent. in real terms—a remarkable affirmation, in difficult economic circumstances, of the importance that we attach to the service and to the work of NACAB within it.

The hon. Member for Battersea, South spoke about Wandsworth, of which he has great experience. He will know that there are three citizens advice bureaux under the Wandsworth borough council—one at Wandsworth, one at Battersea and one at Roehampton. The Roehampton branch does about half of the work of the other two, but about 40 per cent. of its inquiries are repeat ones. That is a sign of how complicated some of the issues are. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the money allocated had been increased. It has been increased considerably. For the area that he represents, the figures are nothing like the general ones that he mentioned. In 1980, the contribution from the borough council to the three offices was £120,000. In 1981 it was £154,000 and for 1982–83 it is £185,000. That is quite substantial support from the local council. I sympathise, however, in that I know that the hon. Gentleman will not think that that is sufficient.

Two fair and proper questions may be put about the way in which bureaux are funded. The first is whether the best possible use is being made of the money that the Government provide. The second is whether the Government could or should do more to support individual grass roots bureaux which, in the last resort, are the raison d'être of the whole programme.

Part of our grant supports the administrative overheads of NACAB's headquarters organisation and the machinery, elected by the service as a whole, which determines policy and establishes standards on a national basis. But the bulk—over 80 per cent., NACAB estimates—is spent in one way or another on direct support for individual bureaux throughout the country. About one-quarter goes on the basic information and training service that is central to the effective operation of the service. A further one-quarter goes on "field support" for groups of bureaux at area level. Between one-quarter and one-third goes on cash assistance for individual bureaux capital or operating costs.

It has been suggested that direct cash assistance for bureaux should be substantially increased. NACAB proposed that when it asked us last year to double its grants from £5 million to £10 million. It intended that such additional funding should be spent largely on the operating costs of individual bureaux. As the House is aware, a further increase in grant assistance on the scale which NACAB sought is simply not possible within current constraints on public expenditure. Quite apart from that, any substantial increase in central Government funding for bureaux running costs raises major problems of principle. In saying that, I have every sympathy with those who point out that the combined effect of the levels in local authority spending, and increasing demands on individual bureaux, is putting the service under serious pressure. In the past two or three months I have seen something of the conditions in which some bureaux are working. Some of the conditions are simply not acceptable.

One of the fundamental aspects is that if someone goes to a bureau to discuss very personal matters, he must be able to discuss them in an atmosphere of privacy, not within the hearing of people who are waiting. I am looking into the matter. I have made a point of visiting as many bureaux as possible even in the short time that I have held my present position. I have recently had discussions with the chairman of NACAB about whether the money that is provided centrally is being used in the most effective way and the dilemma, or principle, of whether more money should go locally or centrally. I have told her that I should be happy, if it would help, to examine that matter and any ideas that NACAB may advance about the more effective use of the money that we provide centrally.

Effectiveness is only partly a matter of money. Nevertheless, it is crucially important to ensure that taxpayers' money is used as effectively as possible. Effectiveness is also a matter of structure and organisation—both in the generalist advice service, such as the citizens advice bureaux, and also in the more specialised advice from other services.

Hon. Members touched on an important point. There is too much overlap between the albeit limited number of advice centres in one area. People are still confused about where they should go for particular types of help. As we all know, it is possible to be sent to several centres and not to end up with the advice that one seeks. I am examining that problem urgently. I shall discuss it again with NACAB.

In the next few days, I hope to visit the headquarters at Drury Lane to examine the work being done there, especially the literature that is distributed and the way in which it is set out. I shall visit more bureaux throughout the country before coming to any conclusions on the matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea, South for raising the issue. The House has not had an opportunity to debate it for some time. I shall examine the constructive points that have been raised and discuss with NACAB whether changes are needed.

I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), to reply to this debate. I know that the other Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), was to reply but has an important and pressing engagement. It is typical of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton generously to step into the breach.

The present rating system dates back more than 400 years. Queen Elizabeth I made provision for the poor and a levy was raised from the occupiers of each property in the parish to satisfy what was required by the churchwardens for the relief of the poor. This arose directly from the action taken by her father, King Henry VIII, in dissolving the monasteries which until then had provided for the poor out of their sizeable assets. It is perhaps appropriate that we should be discussing this matter today, on the morning of the first visit of a Pope to this country.

Over the years, the system has been expanded to provide for many other services. This was particularly so during the last century when local authorities took over from the churches responsibilities in education, welfare and a number of other spheres. Moreover, almost every year this century, Parliament has heaped further duties and responsibilities on local authorities, and thereby considerably escalated the cost of funding those duties.

Inevitably, the increase in this burden has had two results. First, Governments have found it necessary to provide finances from the Exchequer to help carry the load. Secondly, there have been increasing demands for the abolition of the tax altogether, on the ground that it is a very heavy burden and is no longer equitably applied. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has this very much in mind and is currently examining the results of his public consultation paper "Alternatives To Domestic Rates".

In the meantime, however, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 was passed to provide a fairer way of distributing the funds allocated by central Government for this purpose. The biggest spenders among local authorities are now not necessarily those that receive the largest subsidy from Government funds, as previously seemed to be the case when each council had the right to demand subsidies based on its own interpretation of it s needs. As a result of the 1980 Act, grant-related expenditure was brought into being, with the intention of establishing the basic needs of each local authority according to its duties and responsibilities, calculated by reference to a rather complicated formula.

Clearly local authorities have very different views about their needs—that is why the previous system was unfair—but they certainly do not lose any opportunity to state their case to Government and to request flexibility due to some difficult problem that is not shared by others or at least not to the same extent. They therefore never cease asking the Department for flexibility. It is right and proper that there should be sympathy and understanding for the problems of others, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and his colleagues take those representations most seriously.

Until recent years liability to pay rates depended upon beneficial occupation, without which no rates were payable. This was changed by the General Rate Act 1967, which gave local authorities the power to charge empty rates in their area. Incidentally, empty rates are not the same as general rates. They are higher, as they do not benefit from the subsidy applied in relation to domestic general rates.

Local authorities had previously expressed the wish to exert that power because they believed that property owners were intentionally keeping premises empty purely and simply to benefit from a capital gain. This applied especially to the domestic sector, in which it was then, as now, extremely difficult to effect a letting that truly reflected the value of the property. Authorities adopting the rights provided by the 1967 Act could thus ensure that an owner became liable to pay rates after a period of three months' vacancy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on raising this subject in an Adjournment debate. Is he aware that an increasing number of people believe that, whatever the merits or demerits of the 1967 Act, the provisions need clarifying? The provision for a three-month rate exemption period to which my hon. Friend has referred does not state specifically whether it is three months in any one financial year, three months per individual owner or three months only for all time on any one property. The latter is certainly the interpretation given to it by my local authority in a dispute that I have had with it on behalf of a constituent.

Therefore, whatever case my hon. Friend is advancing, does he agree that schedule 1 and/or section 17 of the General Rate Act 1967 requires amendment?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises an important point that should be cleared up. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind when he replies. I do not think that the House or Parliament generally ever expects to be able to cover every eventuality, but this is a real and important point that clearly needs further consideration. I am sure that it will be dealt with appropriately at the earliest possible moment.

The result of the 1967 Act was to concentrate the minds of property owners, who were induced to reconsider very carefully the situation in relation to any empty building, to such an extent that premises were sometimes let without any rent being charged so long as the rates were met.

Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 1 to the 1967 Act provides:

"Where, in the case of any rating area in which, by virtue of a resolution under section 17 of this Act, this Schedule is in operation, any relevant hereditament in that area is unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding three months, the owner shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, be rated in respect of that hereditament for any relevant period of vacancy; and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the hereditament were occupied during that relevant period of vacancy by the owner."

It was realised, however, that this could be very harsh indeed. Paragraph 2 therefore provides:

"No rates shall be payable under paragraph 1 of this Schedule in respect of a hereditament for, or for any part of the three months beginning with the day following the end of, any period during which—

(a) the owner is prohibited by law from occupying the hereditament or allowing it to be occupied;

(b) the hereditament is kept vacant by reason of action taken by or on behalf of the Crown or any local or public authority with a view to prohibiting the occupation of the hereditament or to acquiring it;

(c) the hereditament is the subject of a building preservation order."

In considering three months Parliament rightly decided that unnecessary hardship could indeed occur. As a result of an amendment, therefore, paragraph 3A now provides:

"Without prejudice to section 53 of this Act, a rating authority shall have power to reduce or remit the payment of any rates payable in respect of a hereditament by virtue of paragraph 1 of this Schedule if they consider that the payment would cause hardship to the person liable for those rates."

I understand that it has been made clear by the Department that hardship is not exclusively financial but may also be considered on other grounds.

Parliament has been anxious to ensure that the law should be fair in its operation and to provide, after 400 years of rating law, that rates could be charged not only on occupation but also when a property is unoccupied. We are still in the early days of this entirely new departure and therefore it is important that those local authorities that are involved should be particularly cautious and careful in their handling of this issue.

There have been cases where that is not so. I have a constituent who has indeed suffered in this way. He is a Mr. Ducker who lives at 17 Park Avenue, Ilford, who purchased a 999-year leasehold interest in 52 Woodberry Grove, N.4 in 1957. He lived in those premises until 1968 when he moved to his present address. Shortly after Mr. Ducker left that property, he let the premises to a Miss Yvonne Elizabeth Murray who died in tragic circumstances on 16 May 1975, leaving the property vacant. At a later date, Mr. Ducker was informed that squatters had occupied the premises. Subsequently, in 1977, the premises were boarded up by the Greater London Council.

In July 1978 Mr. Ducker received a demand for unpaid rates, back-dated to August 1975. On 15 August 1978 Mr. Ducker received a summons for non-payment of rates. There has been copious correspondence between Mr. Ducker and the local authority between those dates and subsequently.

Mr. Ducker paid the rates on 52 Woodberry Grove from 1957 until 1973, in spite of the fact that he let the property to Miss Murray in 1968. The rate demands throughout this period were sent to Mr. Ducker at his address in my constituency, where he still lives. During 1973, Miss Murray began to pay the rates and continued to do so until her death, and the rate demands were no longer sent to 17 Park Avenue.

When Miss Murray died in 1975 Mr. Ducker informed the local authority that the property was no longer occupied. He did not hear from the local authority in any respect until he received the rate demand in July 1978. That rate demand claimed rates from August 1975—excluding the three-month period—and related to the property as a valuable one, although it had been boarded up since 1977 after being severely vandalised and had been uninhabitable since that date, which was, or should have been, within the local authority's knowledge.

Mr. Ducker feels that due to the local authority's failure to send a rate demand for those three years he was denied the opportunity to challenge the valuation of the property and the rate assessment. Furthermore, the local authority was at all times aware of Mr. Ducker's address and could have contacted him there at any time. The local authority claims to have had the property inspected every four to six weeks by a rate inspector and should therefore have been aware of the property's condition.

The important factors in this case are in my opinion that the local authority failed to send a rate demand to Mr. Ducker in respect of the property at 52 Woodberry Grove until July 1978, three years after it had been notified that the property was vacant, although at all times it knew Mr. Ducker's address and had previously corresponded with him there. The local authority failed to inform Mr. Ducker of the property's valuation on which the rate assessment was based.

By reason of those actions the local authority deprived Mr. Ducker of the opportunity to appeal against the assessed valuation of the property. The local authority failed to inform Mr. Ducker that the property was boarded up in August 1977 as being uninhabitable, and failed to inform him that it was open to him to have the property's value reassessed. The local authority failed until August 1979 to inform Mr. Ducker that it was open to him to have the property's value reassessed, that being two years after the property was boarded up as being uninhabitable and one year after the first rate demand had been sent.

Therefore, the authority allowed a debt in excess of £1,000 to accumulate. It then took Mr. Ducker to court and there was a complete muddle about that as well. It served a summons on Mr. Ducker for non-payment of rates and the hearing of that summons was moved from one court to another, of which he was not notified. It was purely by accident that he learned where the hearing was subsequently to take place.

In all the circumstances, I believe the local authority failed in its duty to act fairly and to observe the rules of natural justice.

Mr. Ducker wondered what he could do about all this. On advice, he decided to take the matter to the local government ombudsman. However, owing to the effluxion of time it was not possible for the case to be heard. Clearly Mr. Ducker is not a man to rush to have his grievances redressed at the first possible moment. In view of the enormous amount of time that had elapsed, he did not realise that he had to make his objection within a set period.

Councillor Lobenstein, an excellent councillor in the London borough of Hackney, who I am sure is well known to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for his good works in that part of the world, took up Mr. Ducker's case and did the best that he could on his behalf. Sadly, it was all to no avail because the case was, as I said, ruled out of time and therefore it could not be heard.

In passing, it may interest my hon. Friend to know that although the parliamentary ombudsman has a duty to report to a Select Committee of the House, I can trace no such requirement for the local government ombudsman. He may wish to establish whether that should be corrected. The House having established such necessary arrangement in the former case, it seems to me that it ought to have done so in the latter case as well and thereby reserved to itself some say in the running of such a department. Perhaps that needs looking into.

I believe that this case was earlier referred to the local authority's finance committee. It was asked to consider waiving the rates because, clearly, Mr. Ducker had not benefited from the premises being left vacant. The local authority appears only to have replied that it would be prepared to purchase the property from Mr. Ducker.

That raises another issue. There seems to me to be a grey area between, on the one hand, the local authority's demand for substantial rates and, on the other, its telling him that it would be happy to buy the property from him and settle the rate demand out of the amount that it was prepared to pay him. That offer would appear to be somewhat suspect, because on the one hand it was applying pressure for the settlement of the rate demand and on the other expressing willingness to purchase property in which clearly few people would he interested. There could be a conflict of interests here, and I seriously wonder whether that is a right and proper thing for it to do at one and the same time.

In view of the hardship that was suffered, it is harder to understand why the finance committee was not prepared to be much more understanding in this case, particularly over the doubt concerning the squatters. Clearly Mr. Ducker would not be responsible if the squatters were in residence. It would be up to the local authority to recover rates from them, although that in itself is a difficult matter. The local authority would not find it easy to recover rates from squatters, particularly after they have left the premises. It is much easier to go for Mr. Ducker, whom I hesitate to call a sitting duck, but nevertheless he is a highly respectable man living in my constituency whose address at all times had been known to the local authority.

When members of the London borough of Hackney come to my hon. Friend and his colleagues to ask for sympathy and understanding in their own case—they obviously do have considerable problems in Hackney—he should also remind them of the need to be sympathetic and understanding to their own ratepayers.

It is in my view immoral of a local authority to expect to have a fair and understanding hearing from the Department when it is not prepared to give in like manner to its own ratepayers. I ask my hon. Friend to consider what might be done to ensure that this does not happen again.

Mr. Ducker has agreed to pay the money. His income is very modest and he has to find £50 a month to settle the local authority's bill. That seems wrong. He is not the type of man to plead poverty or to take advantage of the social security system. He believes in standing on his own feet and I applaud that. It is immoral for the local authority to have used its might in that way when an examination of the facts of the case would have illustrated its own inadequacies.

It is a pleasure to end the current session in the manner in which I have spent so much of it replying to Adjournment debates initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). I thank my hon. Friend for raising the topic today. It is important.

The question of levying rates on empty houses is difficult and affects relatively few people. Nevertheless, it is a topic that needs detailed consideration regularly to ensure that the legislative provisions do not become counter-productive, that they are fully understood and not applied unfairly.

The concept of empty property rates is, in rating terms, relatively new. My hon. Friend rightly put the subject in the broader context of our proposals for domestic rating reform and our policies for rearranging the rate support grant.

The powers for local authorities to levy rates on unoccupied property at their discretion were introduced in the mid-1960s with the aim of providing a disincentive to keeping property empty for speculative purposes. That such powers were desirable at the time few, in retrospect, would dispute. We are all aware of Centre Point which was one example of the property speculation then rife. Times change, however, and there was a strong suspicion towards the end of the 1970s that, far from being kept empty for speculative purposes, properties were empty because their owners were unable to find a buyer.

Therefore, when this Government took office my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State instigated an investigation into the whole question of empty property rates. The investigation was carried out by officials within my Department in consultation with representatives of industry, of local authority associations and other appropriate bodies. The investigation showed that there was little, if any, evidence of the speculation of the 1960s and early 1970s and that empty property rates were exacerbating the problems caused to industry by the recession.

Many firms were being forced to close factories through lack of sales, but their plight was then made worse by the requirement to pay, in some cases, substantial sums in rates on those non-productive units that they also found that they could not sell. There was a strong case, therefore, for the abolition of those rating provisions.

One must bear in mind, however, that the abolition of the local authorities' powers to levy empty property rates would deprive local authorities of a substantial source of income in those areas where such rates are levied.

Without going into the Government's views on local authority expenditure, which are well known and do not need rehearsing in this context, it is fair to say that this loss of income would be recouped, in some areas, by increasing the rate burden on the other ratepayers. This would particularly hit the inner cities and other areas suffering from a declining industrial base.

The abolition of empty property rates in these areas would increase the rates burden on the remaining industries which would reduce their competitiveness and might lead to those industries being faced with the choice of relocating or going under. There is a genuine risk that the abolition of empty property rates could in some areas promulgate a spiral of industrial decline.

There is also the question of local authority services. My hon. Friend mentioned the argument that many owners complaining about the rating of empty property use as a justification for their complaint the fact that empty property does not benefit from the services provided by the local authorities. Rates are, of course, a form of tax and the question of degree of direct benefits derived is not perhaps strictly relevant, but I think that the basis for complaint is not quite correct.

Empty property continues to derive benefit from the protection afforded by the police and fire services. I am sure that it is agreed that any of the local authorities' services and activities which directly or indirectly reduce vandalism is also of benefit. I do not propose to delve further into that approach. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that it is fair that where local authorities judge it to be appropriate the owners of empty property should be required to make some contribution towards the rates, in recognition of the services from which they continue to derive benefit. That is the background to the current legislative position.

The position today is that rating authorities may resolve to levy rates on property that has been unoccupied for more than three months, or six months in the case of newly constructed dwellings—the so-called grace period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) mentioned the need for clarification. His was a somewhat up-market point for me and I do not have the reply at my fingertips. I shall write to my hon. Friends with the Department's interpretation, such as it is, of the present statute. I was not aware that there was any confusion about how it should be interpreted. In response to my hon. Friend's intervention, I shall make inquiries and see whether my Department has a role to play in sorting the matter out.

When the rating authorities resolve to levy rates on empty property they can levy rates on any class or classes of hereditaments, or they can restrict such levying of rates to certain areas within their district. That is the policy of the borough referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South where there is a slightly lower rate in one part of the borough which the authority is trying to revive industrially.

Rating authorities can also set the level of empty property rates at anything between nothing and 100 per cent. of the full rate on dwelling houses, and up to 50 per cent. on other hereditaments, including industrial and commercial property.

As my hon. Friend rightly reminded the House, local authorities have discretion to reduce or remit the empty property rates that they have levied in individual cases, but only on ground of hardship. I shall return later to the specific case to which my hon. Friend referred.

The Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980 varied the previous legislation in respect of empty property rates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now has powers to vary the maximum percentage of the full rate that can be levied as empty property rates either uniformly or in relation to different classes of hereditaments in different areas and to vary the initial grace period. It was the introduction of these powers that enabled a 50 per cent. limit on authorities' discretion to vary commercial and industrial rates for empty property to be introduced with effect from 1 April last year.

As I have said, the major problems at the time appeared to be in the non-domestic sector and it was not considered appropriate to use the powers to place a ceiling on the amount of rates that local authorities may levy on empty houses. Of course, I am aware that, where rates are required to be paid on unoccupied dwellings, owners who have had to move because of their jobs and who are unable to sell their homes can face severe hardship. But I think that there are also arguments for retaining a level of rating on such properties generally.

Since this Government came to power, our primary concern in housing has been to see that the best use was made of existing housing stock. In England, some 92,000 local authority dwellings were estimated to be empty on 1 April 1981. This was an improvement on the previous year when the figure stood at 100,000, but there were still a number of authorities with levels of empty housing way above the 2 per cent. of stock recognised in management and maintenance subsidy arrangements as the acceptable level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has made vigorous efforts to exhort local authorities, new towns, housing associations and Government Departments to bring back empty housing into productive use.

In the private sector, the shorthold tenancies provision in the Housing Act 1980 was designed to encourage private landlords to let their dwellings.

Whilst I do not want to argue that the abolition or limitation of rates on empty houses would, by itself, lead to an increase in the numbers of dwellings left vacant, or to the length of time they remained unoccupied, I believe that the removal of any sanction that has the effect of discouraging such action could be contemplated only after very careful consideration.

As I mentioned earlier, I accept that empty property rates are causing hardship in some areas where owners who have been forced to move are unable to find buyers for their old homes. But the legislation is flexible enough for local authorities to take account of this. The power to levy empty property rates is discretionary and should be used to reflect the time state of the housing market and not purely for dogmatic reasons. The buoyancy of the housing market is far more dependent on local circumstances than is the market for industrial premises, which would make it difficult to legislate on any basis other than a broad based discretionary power.

I turn to the specific case put forward by my hon. Friend. I am afraid that at this stage I am not in a position to comment on the detailed case history that he gave. But my hon. Friend made a powerful case on behalf of his constituent, and one cannot but feel sympathy for Mr. Ducker.

Local authorities have been given wide discretion in the use of their powers to levy rates on empty premises. Without having been able to consider all the facts of the case, however, and, therefore, without making any judgments in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, I can say that the Government hope that local authorities will use their discretion in a sensible and defensible manner, taking account of all the relevant circumstances and balancing these against the need to encourage the full use of empty properties.

My hon. Friend made a specific point about the local government ombudsman, and I was pleased to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) in his place, because he has a specific interest in these subjects. I am sure that he will take this matter further. But I note that the case was referred to the local government ombudsman, and I was sorry to learn that he was not able to make a full investigation. From the account that my hon. Friend gave the House, it seemed to me that i he London borough of Hackney had not acted with quite the perception and sensitivity that might have been expected.

My hon. Friend asked whether there was a role for me to play in terms of discussions that I might have with the London borough. I should like to look into that suggestion, and I shall let my hon. Friend know whether there is a role for my Department to play.

I listened with enormous care to what my hon. Friend said. This is a subject which we have to keep constantly under review. If we consider that there is overwhelming evidence that the provisions for the rating of empty property are not working as intended, clearly we shall have to review them. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurances that we shall not hesitate to use the available powers to amend them if that case is made.

Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I say that I hope that he will look into the specific point about the residential occupier having to pay rather more than he would if the premises were occupied. There would seem to be an additional burden here. Whereas a commercial ratepayer would be paying much the same rates whether the premises were occupied or not, the residential occupier falls into a different bracket.

It may have something to do with paragraph 1(2) of schedule 1, which provides:

"Subject to the provisions of this schedule the amount of any rates payable by an owner in respect of a hereditament by virtue of this paragraph shall be the specified proportion of the amount which would be payable if he were in occupation of the hereditament; and no reduction shall be made under section 48 of this Act in respect of any rates so payable."

It may be that under section 48 the local authority will make reductions because the property is being residentially occupied. It therefore seems wrong to me that a residential property owner should be penalised at a higher level if the property is unoccupied. If the local authority suspects that it is being kept vacant to be used for some other purpose, it is always open to it to refer the matter to the district valuer for the re-rating of the premises as a whole.

My hon. Friend makes a valid technical point that occupied houses attract domestic rate relief which reduces the rate poundage by 18·5p, and he points out, quite rightly, that this does not apply to empty property. That means that empty houses may in some instances be subject to higher rates than they would face if occupied. I shall write to my hon. Friend about this, because he seems to have raised an important issue.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the problems created for consumers by insurance contracts and the steps which I hope that the Government may take to draw to the attention of policy holders the extraordinarily complex and often thoroughly unsatisfactory position in which they stand.

Each of us in the House has a certain interest to declare because we are all policy holders of one kind or another. There are no policies available to Ministers which guarantee them their offices; nor to hon. Members which ensure them their seats. But for many other purposes we hold policies.

The criticisms that I make are not directed at those who insure me. For at least three generations the Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group and its predecessors have treated my family with considerable courtesy and, when my late grandfather came here from Lithuania and insurers were loth to insure Jewish immigrants, the Atlas Assurance Company took on the insurance of the family and, in recognition, we have stayed with it ever since. So I am not attacking my company nor any of the great companies, which often stretch the requirements of the law in order that justice may be done. But even the finest of companies may wobble, and the law is totally unsatisfactory.

This debate is not one in which we can recommend changes in the law, but it is right to draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of the law as it stands and to ask the Minister to remind the public, within the powers that he has, of these very serious problems.

When people take out insurance cover, they expect to be buying protection. All too often they do not get it when the grim moment of claim arrives. The reason sometimes is that they have not taken out the protection that they should have done and they have not bought what they should have bought. With insurance, as with most other commodities, the purchaser gets what he pays for. But often it is because of the nature of the contract and of the way that insurance companies administer their contract terms.

Due largely to the strength and power of the insurance lobby, when the Unfair Contract Terms Act was passed by a Government which I supported, unfortunately the insurance industry was exempted. As a result, that protection which is given to people against exclusion clauses which are unfair or unreasonable is not extended to those who avail themselves of the services of insurers. Every insurance contract contained, as it always is, in a policy document includes exclusion clauses, and these are binding, however unreasonable they may be and however unnoticed they may be. The law is that once anyone has signed a document he is, except in the most remote circumstances, taken to have known what was in it, to have understood what was in it and to be bound by whatever is in it. So people require to be warned of this vast danger. The Minister in his reply may be able to say that the danger is to be removed by some action which he—or perhaps the Director General of Fair Trading—might have in mind. But meanwhile this is a major and vicious trap for all of us who have insurance policies.

There is an archaic rule which the Law Commission, following the trail of many others, has recommended should go. The rule says that one must make disclosure of material facts which might affect the mind of the insurer, even if one is not asked about them. People who, for example, take out travel insurance and are going on holiday, either over this Whitsun period or later, and who think they have covered themselves against all forms of disaster, are not asked whether they have made previous claims against other companies, although any such claim would be directly material to the responsibility of the insurers. Therefore, insurers are entitled, in many cases, to repudiate liability.

The fact that most insurers do not take advantage of the position is a tribute to the excellent way in which the industry is frequently administered. But the fact that the power exists and that it is exercised from time to time—there are many reported cases which show the shambles of the protective devices which should be available to people—is an indication that, particularly as we approach this holiday weekend, it is for the Minister, I suggest, to warn holidaymakers to make sure that they are not excluded from the cover they expect to get.

When any policy holder enters into a contract, he may have to prove that he has a claim and follow some complicated rules laid down in the contract which in practice would cause people very great difficulty. I have been very disturbed at the number of cases which have come to me—through constituents and sometimes from outside—indicating the often wicked way in which people are deprived of their rights, and get them only when a Member of Parliament intervenes.

The most startling case concerned a very courageous disabled lady called Mrs. Hyatt, who lives on New Parks Estate in my constituency. Her husband went out to see their daughter in Australia and was drowned. A claim was made under travel insurance from the Bishopsgate Insurance Company Limited. The company first made difficulties even about paying for the ashes to be returned to the United Kingdom, and then declined to pay the £2,000 on the accident insurance because, as it said,

"on a strict legal interpretation of the cover in respect of death from drowning it can be argued—and an opinion was taken in this respect—that this is excluded by the fact that death did not result from the person sustaining bodily injury caused by accidental external violent and visible means".

When the man concerned went on holiday he took out insurance to cover him in respect of just that risk. He was drowned, without any suggestion that he had a heart attack—so that it could be argued that drowning did not cause the death—yet the company refused to pay. I wrote to the company and suggested that it might like to look into the matter before I took action in this House, and I am delighted to say the that £2,000 was paid at once. Having had correspondence with one of the leading executives of the company, I ventured to hope that it would not do the same again.

But that is not the only company acting in such a way. I have a great bundle of complaints from people insured by various companies. The latest of the complaints had nothing to do with holidays. It concerned a woman whose wall was knocked down by a lorry. The company refused to pay because it said that the cause was frost and erosion. When I wrote to the company suggesting that that was perhaps not the best point in the insurers' book, it paid like a lamb, but the intervention of Members of Parliament should not he required.

On the other hand, the public should know that, if they run into such trouble, they should go to their Members of Parliament, so that we can weigh in on their behalf and see that, even when the law is against them—which often it is not—justice and the law are tempered by mercy, compassion and common sense in an industry which performs such good service and which, no doubt, will wish to continue on the same sort of basis.

I recollect the case of a certain fire insurance company which went into liquidation, leaving many people whistling for their money. As a result of complaints in this House in the very early days of my time here, a fund has been set up, with the creation of an ombudsman, and the company is doing its best to put its house in order, but meanwhile the law is not in order.

Let us assume that a person has a policy that covers him, that there is no material non-disclosure, that no exclusion clauses apply, and that he can prove his case. That is still not the end of the trail. The assured still has to satisfy the company that he is not over-insured or underinsured, and that his case is appropriate. There is a great deal of haggling to be done before people are paid. The process is much too prolonged and much too unfair. I suggest, with respect, that that is another matter that the Minister should look into.

If the worse comes to the ultimate worst, we have the sort of insurance disaster that has overtaken the unfortunate Mr. Bernard Saltman. His business premises caught fire and the insurers duly paid the first instalment under the policy. Then, having paid it, they put on to the trail a gentleman called Dr. Keith Gugan, and managed to spark off a prosecution for arson, resulting in Mr. Saltman's conviction. He is still in prison. Many people—including the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir 1. Gilmour) and myself—believe that the conviction was a travesty of justice. Having seen some of the criticisms made of Dr. Gugan's evidence in other cases—including the Flixborough disaster, the case of White Crescent Trust v. Warren, and the Azru case, and even matters arising out of the fire at Notting Hill—we have been deeply concerned at the way in which the insurance company has sought to preserve its interests by initiating and promoting prosecution.

The matter has been referred to the Home Secretary. Although the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I are both hopeful that the Home Secretary will see fit to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the case, people ought to realise the vast dangers which can arise when an assured person falls foul of an insurance company. People who hear of this debate and have themselves suffered in a similar way, or who have knowledge of evidence given by Dr. Gugan, may see fit to come to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham or to me so that we can attempt, perhaps more successfully, to plead with the Home Secretary to achieve the release of Mr. Saltman. Mr. Saltman's case is an example to us all of the ultimate misery which can emerge from trouble with insurers.

I do not expect the Minister to deal with Mr. Saltman's case—I fully understand that it is not within the scope of his Department—but I am sure that he will note that when the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I agree on a matter, there must be something in it, because we hardly ever come together on other issues. It is a measure of the concern, the discontent and the worry of people that Mr. Saltman is still in prison, albeit in an open prison.

The whole of this area of law requires change and the Law Commission recommends it. In this sort of debate we cannot recommend a change, although we can invite the Minister to say what is in the pipeline between him and the Director General of Fair Trading. If there is nothing, we can ask why. We can say to the Minister that, in view of the clear and justified criticisms of the present system made by the Law Commission—scarcely a militant Left-wing organisation—the Consumers Association, consumer organisations and those who suffer, people should be warned about the problems.

I have introduced a private Member's Bill on this subject which comes up for its Second Reading in July. Being a Ten-Minute Bill it has precious little prospect of success other than to start a campaign.

The law is left in the hands of the courts to administer. The final and ultimate injustice for most people is when they find that they cannot exercise their rights because they cannot afford to go to court. Justice is available to those with no money who can get legal aid and to those with plenty of money who do not need legal aid. Most of the population cannot fight the big battalions. One hopes that the principle of strict liability over accidents at work, on the road and elsewhere will be introduced.

I hope that the Minister will regard my approach as constructive and that the start of the holiday season is the right time to make it and that he will give a constructive and helpful reply such as we have come to expect from him since his transmogrification from the Department of Health and Social Security.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised an extremely important subject. I appreciate his interest in the protection of people-taking out insurance cover. He presented the problem clearly and constructively. If I cannot cover all the actions that he would like, I shall look at the matter just as constructively.

It is important for the policy holder to know where he stands and for customers of all kinds to know what they are paying for and getting. The policy holder should have the peace of mind of knowing that when he has taken out a policy he is properly insured and has covered all the matters that he thinks are covered. Most insurance companies are well run. I frequently hear extremely pleasant and sometimes highly surprised comments about how fully, promptly and fairly insurance claims are dealt with. It is a matter of pride that our insurance industry is not only a great national asset but that it is admired and used internationally. It is an important part of our commercial activities.

I welcome the recent establishment of the insurance ombudsman bureau which has been set up by the insurance industry to deal with policy holders' complaints. It is a good example of an industry not always turning to the Government for regulation and direction but setting up its own body to see that the industry's codes of practice are carried out effectively. Policy holders who find themselves confused as to their rights can go to the bureau, obtain advice and have the matter sorted out.

I hope that more information will be given about the bureau so that more people know of its existence. No one would claim that there are no problems and no room for improvement. I am conscious of the complaints that are made. I deal with a few of them mainly in correspondence from hon. Members. The experience of my Department is that many of the complaints arise from misunderstanding. There are certain features about insurance that are liable to lead to a higher level of complaints. Problems arise from under-insurance where policy holders expect full compensation in exchange for paying premiums which only pay for partial cover. There are difficulties in informing people that they must extend their insurance cover that so that they do not find themselves underinsured for their requirements.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly said that insurance is a complicated subject. It was for that reason that the Law Commission was asked to examine it. I should like to add my appreciation to that already voiced by my predecessor of the work done by the Law Commission in its report "Insurance Law: Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty". It is a complicated part of a complicated subject. I was interested that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the problems over the nondisclosure of information that arise from the requirement to disclose information that is relevant even if one is not asked about it. That leads to confusion and uncertainty.

The related questions of non-disclosure and breach of warranty are important in the relationship between the insurer and his customer. When issuing a policy it is necessary that the insurer should be aware of all the facts material to the contract. It is equally important that the policy holder should be required only to disclose those matters which he can be reasonably expected to consider relevant. We are all seeking a balance between the interests of the insurer and the policy holder, so that the insurer has the information needed to draw up a proper contract and the policy holder has given the information that will not lead to confusion and misunderstanding later. It is whether that balance is satisfactory and whether it should be improved that has been so controversial.

I pay a tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West. He has been active in drawing attention to the problem and the need to do something about it. It was because of some anxiety over the position and the state of the law that the Lord Chancellor of the day asked the Law Commission to look into the matter. It published its findings in October 1980. It is a complicated area legally that affects the fundamental interests of many people.

It is not surprising that the report has aroused strong feelings and disagreement. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the insurance companies should not have been excluded from the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The principal reason for such an exclusion which was advanced when the measure was being considered was that extending the Bill to insurance would handicap the industry in international competition and that it would result in excessive costs being paid by the consumer without any advantages. Insurance contracts are distinctive and the purpose of exemption clauses in insurance contracts is to define the extent of the risk and the circumstances in which the insurer would be obliged to pay. But the arguments advanced in 1977 for the exclusion of insurance should continue to hold good. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to bring other aspects to my attention I shall be glad to look into them.

Is the Minister accepting any—if so, what part—of the Law Commission's report?

Following the report, my Department issued a consultation document. We stated that we found the arguments for reform of the law convincing, but we have not yet reached final conclusions about what should be done. The replies that we have had are divergent. There are still clear differences of opinion. It is clear from reading the report—it has become even clearer after the consultations—that there are extreme divergences of view. We hesitate to move from a situation that we accept is unsatisfactory without looking carefully into the implications of possible changes.

There is then the question of timing. A draft EEC directive is before the Council of Ministers. It also deals with insurance contract law. It would be unwise to ignore that. There is a strong case for not hurrying ahead with changes until we have a clearer idea of the trend of recommendations from the European Commission.

It has been put to us strongly that it would create not only confusion but unacceptable upheaval if we made a change and shortly after found it necessary to make another. Although we want to get on, it would be unwise to go ahead without knowing the outcome of the discussions.

There is confusion. Consumer organisations and the Law Commission strongly submit that there is an urgent need for change, but the insurers argue that, as in practice they do not take advantage of their full legal rights and have issued statements of practice more favourable to customers than the present law, we should not hurry to legislate before the problems have been properly worked out. I see the merits on both sides. It is important to get reforms right and avoid repeatedly tinkering with the law.

Those in the industry will be aware that their arguments, relying on statements of practice, can hold good only as long as they honour them. On the other hand, it is not vital to deal with all the problems at once. We must also consider the fact of the European discussions. But we should not wait indefinitely while discussions go on in Europe. If we can reach agreement here over the changes I would sympathetically consider getting on with them, despite the caveat that I gave.

Another problem area has emerged in the consultations—the scope of the reforms—whether changes should be applied to all insurance contracts or whether a distinction should be made between the different types of policy holder. Should there be a distinction between private consumers and business policy holders or between different types of policy? I should be glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman on that.

Most legal opinion supports my Department's initial view. Reform should apply equally to all contracts, regardless of the nature of the policy holder or the risk covered. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports me. But the insurance industry feels strongly that if there is a need for reform it should be applied only to private consumer contracts. Here again is a difference of view.

The Law Commission drew a distinction between types of contract, but that was within the realm of business contracts—for example, between marine, aviation and transport insurance on the one hand and other business risks on the other. Reform of the law on consumer contracts may be much simpler and more easily carried out than one applying more widely.

That comes back to what I said earlier. We may need to consider implementing some reforms while still discussing other necessary changes. We do not have to hold everything up in order to change everything in one sweep.

One of the most difficult areas involves warranties. A large part of our discussions has been devoted to that area. Here again the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised that the views expressed are varied and do not point to clear conclusions. Under the law a breach of warranty in a contract of insurance automatically entitles the insurer to repudiate the policy. The Law Commission recommended limiting the extent to which the insurers can so repudiate. The insurers argue that the unambiguous sanctions applicable under the existing law help to make the policy holder aware of the need for strict compliance and to ensure legal continuity. But we need to consult further on those difficult issues.

The role and legal position of insurance intermediaries, who are a vital link between insurers and policy holders, require further thought. Even in the short time that I have held this responsibility a number of views have been put to me.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an important subject. Discussions are going on. I congratulate him on his clear and constructive presentation. If he wishes to bring other aspects to our attention, we shall welcome them.

When does the Minister expect the discussions to end and when does he expect to be taking some action on anything? He agrees with almost everything that I say and accepts that the insurers will not like the change much, but there is no sign of movement from his Department. I hope that I am wrong.

With so many divergent views being put to us, I cannot at this stage give the hon. and learned Gentleman a clear date.

I am conscious of the problems and the need to, take action. A good deal of uncertainty has resulted from the Law Commission's report, the consultation paper and the replies. I am aware of the damage that can be caused by drift. We shall not delay.

The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the case of Mr. Saltman. He appreciated the fact that the Home Secretary is considering the matter, although I note what he says.

I welcome this opportunity of raising a serious subject that I believe will command the attention of a great many of my hon. Friends—the problem of heavy lorries in our urban and rural environments.

This is, to say the least, a highly emotive political issue and it evokes instant subjective judgments. However, I believe that the time is overdue for a more objective and balanced assessment of the problem. There is an urgent need for a more comprehensive and considered approach by the Government.

I welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Minister. I know from private talks with him that he has been most helpful and sensitive to the problem. From his constituency experiences he will recognise many of the problems that we face. They are no less acute in his constituency of Hall Green—part of that mecca of municipal magnificence, Birmingham, as I used to think it was before a conspiracy between ungrateful electors and unkind Boundary Commissioners unseated me and I looked for pastures new.

I also welcome the presence of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). I know that he is particularly worried about a problem we have in our part of that even greater metropolis, London.

The problems—indeed, the advantages, because we must recognise them—of heavy lorries in towns and in the countryside are not merely confined to the issue of whether we should permit heavier lorries above the existing maximum gross weight of 32½ tonnes. True, there are proposals for a maximum of 38 or even 40 tonnes, but more important is the present impact and effect of existing large and heavy vehicles on our environment.

The noise, nuisance and disturbance created by heavy lorries have to be set against their commercial and economic advantages. I do not want to underestimate those advantages. I do not believe that any Government in the past 20 or 30 years, of whatever political hue, have begun to tackle the environmental and social problems caused by what we now call the juggernaut. It is interesting to note that when we have a problem we invest it with a foreign name to try to pretend that it does not belong to us.

Seemingly, Governments have always allowed the practical needs of industry and the development of road transport to have precedence over environmental considerations. But the adverse environmental impact, at least in certain places in our towns and cities, has become so acute and grave that action and a new approach are urgent and essential.

In this highly emotive political issue I want to dispel two separate myths. First, we are kidding ourselves if we believe that a significant proportion of freight at present carried on our roads could be transferred to rail. To believe that is to fly in the face of economics—in short, to be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I am told that about 85 Per cent. of freight tonne mileage is carried on the roads as opposed to 15 per cent. by rail. I have not forgotten that a considerable proportion of freight is also carried by coastal shipping, that some—oil and gas—is carried by pipeline, and a fraction is carried by inland waterways. That ratio of 85 per cent. to 15 per cent. must be compared with 30 years ago when more freight was carried by rail than by road. I am relieved to read the remarks of Sir Peter Parker, chairman of British Rail, who recently said that British Rail's freight business is improving despite the strikes earlier this year and the recession. I am sure we are glad to hear that.

Even if people wanted, or the Government dictated, that more freight should be moved by rail it would still have to be carried by road in most cases for part of the journey—from the nearest rail point, marshalling yard or goods yard to the factory, warehouse, workshop or shop.

In referring to the second myth that I wish to dispel I must choose my words carefully. The introduction of heavier lorries would not necessarily increase the damage to our environment. I need not rehearse now the arguments against raising the maximum weight limits for heavy lorries. They are obvious, easy to state and even easier for politicians to support. But there are a number of misconceptions. The first is to assume that heavier lorries necessarily mean larger and longer lorries. I am told that a 38 or 40 metric tonner, as opposed to the existing maximum 32½ tonne lorry, would be no higher, no wider and only 20 inches longer. Incidentally, whenever I can I shall use Imperial references, being a good Conservative, and not descend to using metric measurements which, frankly, I do not think in terms of nor, sometimes, understand. However, an increased length of 20 inches on a 40 foot lorry is virtually unnoticeable.

At the risk of descending into technical juggernaut jargon, 20 inches extra length becomes more acceptable if the new heavier lorries have better manoeuverability, more sound insulation round the engine and a safer design. I understand that would be the case because they would be built to more up-to-date specifications.

The crucial argument in the debate on heavier vehicles is whether the extra weight is permissible. It is essential to differentiate between the pay load of a lorry and the weight pressure on the road—what we are pleased to call the axle weight. If the axle weight on the road of a five-axle, 38 or 40 tonne lorry is less, or not more, than a four-axle 32½ tonne lorry—I understand that is generally the case—I cannot see the case against heavier lorries being adequately sustained because there is no increased axle weight pressure on the road.

If that is the case, on most axle configuration, further considerations affecting the environment begin to fall into place. If a virtually same-sized lorry with the same axle weight can take a greater load, fewer lorry journeys are necessary to transport the same amount of goods. To make the point precisely by way of an example, taking 600 tonnes by road from A to B would require 28 journeys by a 32-tonner, but only 23 journeys by a 40-tonner. That suggests to me that there will be environmental advantages. Other arguments can be deployed, some economic—reduced transport costs and increased efficiency—and some environmental—fuel conservation, improved vehicle design and reduced noise and pollution.

All that I ask is that those who care about our urban and rural environments should judge the issue on the facts and not on prejudice. I wonder how many of my constituents realise that some so-called heavier lorries are already using some of our roads, though those lorries are one-third filled with air.

The crucial issue is the impact of large and heavy vehicles on our environment as a result of the growth in the movement of freight by road. That was another main term of reference of Sir Arthur Armitage, whose report was published in December 1980. I pay tribute to the competence and comprehensive nature of that report which I believe will stand the test of time.

The number of lorries—I define a lorry as a goods vehicle of more than 1½ tons unladen weight—has fallen by about 100,000 from the peak of about 650,000 15 years ago. However, there has been an increase in the number of heavier lorries, which I define as those of over 8 tons unladen weight.

The House does not need me to tell it that the nuisance and disturbance of heavy lorries and other vehicles are caused by their noise, vibration, atmospheric pollution, danger to life and limb and other intrusions of which we are all aware. Those nuisances are becoming increasingly intolerable in far too many areas and if we are to reverse the trend—assuming that we cannot solve the problem—we need comprehensive and co-ordinated policies.

Three areas must be given special consideration. The first is the new road building and bypass construction programme. That can be only a partial solution, because no massive road building programmes are in the pipeline or likely to go ahead in the foreseeable future. Of course, I appreciate the stepping up of the bypass construction programme, with particular priority being given to historic towns with populations of over 10,000. However, even if we had the resources many areas could not be bypassed, either literally or, as is more probable, without causing increased environmental damage, at too great a cost, to communities elsewhere. My constituency, and particularly High Barnet, is one such area. Therefore, we must accept that the road building and bypass construction programme can merely touch the problem and cannot be a complete solution.

Secondly, the Government should encourage, and perhaps ultimately insist on, quieter, cleaner and safer vehicles. Paradoxically, the trend to larger and heavier lorries will provide the opportunity for such vehicles to be introduced on to our roads. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, we have to consider lorry control schemes. That is where the greatest progress can and must be made. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) who successfully introduced a private Member's Bill nine years ago, now the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973, which those in the industry understandably refer to as the Dykes Act. That Act, combined with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, gives certain powers to local authorities to control the movement of lorries in their areas, through outright lorry bans, particularly in side streets and byways, specified lorry routes and restrictions on the weight and loading and unloading of heavy lorries. Perhaps the best known scheme implemented under those Acts is the Windsor cordon. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East that about 650 other schemes are in operation throughout the country. Some are small and modest, others more significant, but few are as major as the Windsor cordon.

One such proposal in my part of the Metropolis was about to be implemented by the GLC about a year ago. It covered 50 square miles of north London, bounded by the M25 to the north, the A10 to the east, the North Circular Road to the south and the Al to the west. Unfortunately, the present GLC has seen fit at least to delay the implementation of this scheme after the particular section of the M25 had been completed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate is as worried as I am to know why the GLC does not go ahead immediately with the scheme. I recognise that it would be a great benefit to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend. I also recognise that if one removes lorries from one area of London, one is likely to find more lorries in a different part of London. The point that I make in urging the GLC to have the courage to change its mind is that adequate roads exist and that the scheme could at least be introduced for an experimental period to see what happens.

I should like to refer the Government to that part of the Armitage report dealing with this problem. I wish to put three particular issues to my hon. Friend. The first is that I hope that the Government are undertaking an urgent review to see that local authorities, whether district councils or county councils, London boroughs or the GLC, have sufficient powers to deal with these problems. Secondly, I should like to see the Government encouraging the local authorities to use such powers. I believe that many local authorities could use these powers more effectively than they are presently even intending. Of course, any schemes have to be introduced after proper consultation, not least with industry and commerce, in the particular area that is under consideration.

Thirdly, I would like to see the Government continually monitoring and assessing these particular schemes. I have mentioned the north London box, if I may so call it. This would be the classic scheme which, if introduced immediately, could be monitored carefully by the Government. Arising from that, there is obviously the need for more lorry routes to be designated together with the possibility that lorries and heavy vehicles should be given priority on certain roads and private vehicles restricted in using them.

It is an immensely complicated and comprehensive issue that is under review. What may be right in one part of the country may be inadequate or irrelevant in another part. But there needs to be a sustained effort to try to tackle this growing problem. In the debate on whether or not to permit heavier lorries to use our roads, it would be a mistake if we were deflected from the real problem. The real problem, as I see it, is the increasingly adverse impact of vehicles, mainly but not exclusively heavy lorries, on our towns and rural areas. It is a serious problem which touches almost everyone to some degree and far too many people to an intolerable extent. I believe that the country demands action perhaps along the lines that I have sketchily outlined.

I know that my hon. Friend has enormous experience in this field. He is the only chartered architect and chartered town planner on the Government Benches. Has he considered the position in France where there are prescribed lorry routes? Has this led him to the belief that lorries exceeding a certain weight should be entirely restricted to certain types of roads and not permitted to use other roads except for that part of the journey from or to their point of origin and destination that is nearest to those roads? What my hon. Friend has been saying affects not only his constituency but also the constituency of almost every hon. Member. The suffering that has been caused over many years has manifested itself in great objections to the heavy lorry. That is rather unfair. I feel that successive Governments have failed to face up to their obligations to provide adequate resources for the type of network that is required. Undoubtedly, when many of these roads were originally designed, they were not designed with heavy vehicles in mind.

I am happy to respond to the detailed point made by my hon. Friend. I should perhaps explain that I am a non-practising architect and town planning consultant. I have studied the situation in some other countries but not in the detail that I would have liked because of my parliamentary duties. My hon. Friend is right. A classic example of prescribing a lorry route from, say, the South-East of England to the Midlands and the North would come about when we have a better road system around London, to wit, the M25 orbital motorway that I hope will be completed by the end of 1985 and, of course, the box to ban lorries in 50 square miles of north London.

However, I must caution my hon. Friend on one other aspect. Sometimes it is easy to be impressed by schemes abroad but, because of the different social and economic circumstances or the different topography or demographic layout of our towns and cities, it is not always possible to transplant those schemes successfully to our roads, side streets or byways. With that proviso, I totally accept what he said, and I ask the Minister to take note of it.

In conclusion, I hope that there will be a considered and comprehensive response from the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will be fortified by the knowledge that if that happens and if the Government introduce a sensible package of proposals to be implemented they will be the first Government to do so for many years, and the only Government to do so in the time that the problem of heavy lorries in our towns and countryside has reached such an intolerable degree that action needs to be taken.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the Minister for the opportunity of a few moments in which to take part in this debate. I have strong views on the way in which heavy lorries are affecting people's lives, particularly on country roads and residential roads in urban areas.

As a principle, it is quite intolerable that heavy lorries tear through small country roads, taking up all the road space available, so that it is impossible for cars or other vehicles to pass in the opposite direction. This is a problem that we must face in considering the place of heavy lorries in our country today.

There is another aspect to the problem, and that is the effect of the heavy lorry on the urban dweller. If lorries are routed through narrow, and even not so narrow, residential areas, the pollution, which is many-sided and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, is very great and very disturbing to those people who live in the houses that are affected. The noise, pollution, vibration and the mere effect of a structure weighing 32½ tonnes passing through an urban street are considerable. There are effects well beyond those that we can see.

I want to refer, in particular, to Western Avenue. ft is a specific problem that affects my constituency. However, as Western Avenue is used by many people, the problem affects many people who live outside my constituency. Naturally, the A40 is used extensively by heavy lorries as a direct route into London from Buckinghamshire and areas far beyond that.

As far as I can see, there is no comprehensive planning in the roadworks that are now taking place there. I do not say that there is no clear direction behind the roadworks. Nevertheless, large parts of the road between the Target roundabout and Hanger Lane are shut off for long periods, traffic is reduced to a single lane, and the strain on the commuter motorist is extremely great. The public need to know why such large areas of road are taken out of use for such long periods during road construction, such as is now taking place on the A40. Either the matter should be explained to the public so that they can understand it, or the whole process needs to be looked at so that only one lane is shut off at any time. Life would then become tolerable, and people could understand what was happening and could live with it.

The second problem in the area that I have mentioned relates directly to heavy lorries. East-bound traffic is to be diverted from the Target roundabout at Northolt through a residential area in my constituency—if a suggestion by the Department of Transport is upheld—and will not return to the A40 until Hanger Lane. Therefore, people living in completely residential areas could be faced, for an unspecified time, with thundering lorries passing their front doors. The vibration and sheer hell of it are almost beyond imagination.

I am not looking for an answer today but will the Minister's Department see whether there is an alternative route to the one that has been proposed? We are examining the principle of rerouting heavy lorries when an area of road must be rebuilt. I wonder whether there can be an alternative route or whether some wholly different plan can be found to accommodate the need to reroute heavy lorries for a short time while the canal bridge in the area is being strengthened. Is there an alternative route whereby a deeply upsetting and terrible problem for my constituents can be removed?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) for raising this subject today. He made an interesting speech. It is appropriate that he should do so because he has long been recognised and respected in the House for his great interest in and informed concern for the environment, especially the built environment.

I am especially glad that my hon. Friend chose the effect of heavy lorries as his subject. He was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the subject in large cities such as Birmingham and London. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I noted what he said about Western Avenue and the nearby district. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who is the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for that aspect of roads, to write to him on those points. I am glad that there has been emphasis put on the problems of heavy lorries because there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation about it, especially so far as the Government's proposals are concerned. I welcome this opportunity to put the record straight.

Before I deal with some of the main points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet I should like briefly to fill in the background.

The essential facts are that our economy and our society are dependent on lorries. The other modes—especially rail—have an important and, I hope, growing part to play in moving freight. My hon. Friend mentioned some relevant statistics in that regard. We shall certainly do all that we can to encourage their use where they have environmental advantages. But we simply cannot get away from the fact that the great majority of our freight goes by road and will continue to go by road.

People simply have not realised the change—the revolution—that has occurred in our domestic freight system and in our international trade, nor yet come to terms with the implications. There has been a container revolution that has caught the country unawares. Increasingly, our foreign trade goes by lorry. More than 40 per cent. of our trade is with the European Community and more than half of our trade with the Community—£21 billion a year—is carried by road. These are changes of the greatest significance for the freight system.

Faced with those facts, the Government have two main responsibilities. First, the efficiency of road freight transport matters to our economy. Keeping transport costs in check helps to make British industry more competitive, and so helps maintain jobs and living standards. So the Government have a duty to do all that they reasonably can to help British industry contain its transport costs.

Secondly, the Government have a responsibility to protect people and the environment. We have a paramount duty in particular to ensure that safety standards are maintained.

We must also look to people's more general sense of well-being. Nobody loves lorries. People do not want them in the streets and roads where they and their families live and walk. We must do all that we can to ensure that heavy lorries are kept away from people, and that individual heavy lorries are as safe and as inoffensive as we can reasonably make them. The whole tenor of my hon. Friend's argument emphasised the importance of such an approach.

The second requirement—the need to deal with the effects of lorries on people and the environment—has always been my own and my right hon. Friend's starting point. I cannot say with sufficient emphasis that the environmental effects of heavy lorries have not hitherto been faced squarely. Many people in many places have suffered and are suffering from heavy lorries. Previous Governments have not done enough for them. In some cases, their local authorities have failed them—though the record of other local authorities has been good.

The haulage industry itself needs to recognise more than it has done so far that it is a part of the community with wider responsibilities, and that we are no longer in an age when lorries can travel anywhere with impunity. We have passed the point where the environment takes second place. The interests of people and the environment are now at the forefront.

We now have the opportunity to turn these fine sentiments into practical action. This Government set up the Armitage inquiry into "Lorries, People and the Environment". Sir Arthur Armitage produced a very wide range of recommendations, concluding in December 1980 that

"On the basis of existing policies it seems likely that lorries will have greater adverse effects on people and the environment over the next decade and probably up to the end of the century."

—this on top of an existing situation which he believed was in many cases already insupportable. Sir Arthur concluded, therefore, that the objective must be a combination of policies to reduce substantially the adverse effects of heavy lorries.

The Government agree with the analysis and the conclusion. We are "environmentalists" on this issue. The question is how to achieve the objective. Our White Paper in December described a way forward. We are now building on that, strengthening the complete package. There are three main ways in which we can tackle and are tackling the problems caused by lorries: first, taking lorries away from people; secondly, improving the lorries themselves; thirdly, enforcement of safety and other standards.

The best, most effective way of dealing with the problem is to take lorries away from people. We can influence and control where lorries go in various ways. Where possible, building bypasses is the best method of taking lorries out of local communities. People living in badly affected towns and villages recognise this. So there will be many more bypasses. The transport supplementary grant settlement announced in December will enable 35 more local authority bypass schemes to go ahead. In addition, we announced in February that several major bypasses were being added to the active trunk road programme.

Taking the national and local programmes together, nearly 100 communities will be bypassed by roads now under construction. In addition, another 120 or more communities will benefit from schemes to be started in the next two to three years. We shall continue to give priority to bypasses in the allocation of funds to local authorities and in reviewing the forward programme for trunk roads.

Another way of keeping lorries away from people is by lorry control schemes. Controls over lorry routes need to be exercised more vigorously than they are now. Some local authorities could do more to keep lorries away from unsuitable roads. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that they certainly have the powers. We have issued a circular urging local authorities to make more effective use of their wide powers to prohibit or direct lorry traffic by means of soundly based control schemes.

In considering bids for the transport supplementary grant, the Government will give favourable treatment to counties making good use of their powers to control lorries, and my Department is ready to help those local authorities that want assistance in designing and establishing lorry routes.

The road haulage licensing authorities will be able to take environmental factors into consideration under powers the Government are seeking in the Transport Bill that is now before the House. This judicious mixture of carrot and stick, plus practical encouragement, is, I am sure, fully justified because lorry control schemes are of great importance in reducing the effects of heavy lorries.

Another way of getting lorries away from people is to ensure fair competition between modes of transport and further to encourage the use of rail and waterway where there would be environmental benefits in so doing. So we must tax lorries properly to see that they cover their road track costs. Already lorries taken as a whole do. Moreover, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget an increase of 25 per cent. in the tax on the heaviest lorries, about £350 a year. We are introducing a new system of lorry taxation in October, based on gross weights and axle numbers, which will make it easier to relate road damage to taxation.

We have a thriving system of grants, called section 8 grants, designed to encourage transfer of freight to rail where this would bring environmental benefits. That has been very successful. One hundred and ten grants have been made at a total cost of £35 million. Two grants for rail schemes announced this month in Salford and Dagenham will reduce the number of heavy lorry journeys by some 19,000 a year. We have shown our good offices by extending the section 8 scheme to waterways, as recommended by the Armitage report.

It is unrealistic to hope that all heavy lorry traffic can travel away from people and sensitive areas or, indeed, away from other traffic. So we must improve the lorries themselves. We must make them safer and enhance environmental standards—that means for all lorries. We shall be introducing sideguards on lorries. Those will help to protect cyclists and pedestrians where they are involved in an accident with a lorry. We shall be introducing mandatory rear under-run guards on lorries to protect motorists when their cars run under the rear of lorries. There will be better braking standards.

A traffic danger arising from the spray thrown up by lorries in wet road conditions causes concern. We are working towards a regulation for mandatory spray suppression equipment when we have developed an agreed standard. There will be tighter requirements for noise. Those are major advances.

However, to lay down standards is not enough. They must be enforced. We are making big efforts here. More staff and equipment are being provided for enforcing proper limits on loading and other safety standards. There will be a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure this year on the installation of new, more efficent weighbridges. These will be mainly on sites at or near ports. We are ensuring that foreign as well as British lorries meet those demanding standards.

Who would believe, given that comprehensive catalogue of major action to reduce the harmful effects of lorries, the public reception given to our proposals? I simply do not believe that some citizens know or understand what we are saying. It is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who is the environmentalist. It is he who, for the first time, is taking comprehensive action to deal with lorries.

It is not easy to assess why there should be this failure to understand our purpose or why we should have had this communications break-down. One important reason is that attention has been concentrated on the lorry weight proposals and that induces a knee-jerk reaction based on an understandable emotional feeling against lorries. However, it is not based on a full appreciation of the environmental gains that can be achieved under the Armitage proposals.

I justify the weight proposals on two grounds, and both of them are essentially environmental. First, if we are to have all the splendid improvements that I have listed, someone has to pay. They do not come free. The taxpayer will not pay. It will have to be the haulier and his customers. The undoubted economic advantages of heavier lorries give us at the very minimum savings in haulage costs of £1·5 billion in the next decade at present day prices, and almost certainly more. Industry itself testifies to the savings. They will help to pay for the environmental improvements that we so desperately need.

It would be unrealistic—and undermine our competitive position and British jobs—to expect industry to pay those costs without the opportunity of doing so through higher productivity. Higher maximum weights give them that opportunity. It is frankly crazy, particularly in view of the growth in container traffic, for standard size containers to travel through the country and on to our ferries one third full of air. I have no hesitation in repeating the vivid words used by my hon. Friend.

Secondly, higher maximum weights actually help the environment. At first sight that seems paradoxical. But we are talking about heavier lorries, not bigger ones. In fact, we are introducing a height limit for heavier lorries of 4·2 metres, the first ever in this country.

The Government will not tolerate bigger containers and trailers on our roads. The lorries will be subject to higher safety and environmental standards than are demanded of existing lorries. Because each lorry will be allowed to carry more we shall need fewer of them to carry the same amount of freight. To those sceptics who say that it will not work out like that in real life I merely point to the facts. In 1970 there were 620,000 lorries over 1½ tons; by 1980 the number was down to 519,000.

Sainsbury's told my right hon. Friend when he was visiting its Basingstoke distribution depot recently that the average of 10 deliveries that it makes each day to each of the 60 supermarkets served from that depot could be reduced to six if only the vehicles could be loaded more fully. Multiplying that up means fewer vehicles to cause accidents, fewer to damage the environment, and so on. My hon. Friend will realise the importance of that to the urban environment and especially to big cities. So my hon. Friend's speech hits exactly the right note in its insistence that the present position simply will not do. Most people share that view. The Government do.

But this Government, uniquely, are taking matters further. Not only do we recognise the problem, but we are undertaking a comprehensive programme of action to deal with it. We are not prepared to let matters drift. I believe that slowly but surely people throughout the country and in the House who care in a practical way for environmental improvement will be convinced of the rightness and effectiveness of our approach.