I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 established the Audit Commission as an independent body to appoint external auditors to certain bodies, including local authorities, and to help those bodies to ensure that they provided their services economically, efficiently and effectively. The commission's role was extended to cover the national health service from October 1990 by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

The Local Government Finance Act imposes certain duties on an auditor of a local authority or other body, which he discharges in accordance with the published code of audit practice, independently of both the Audit Commission and Ministers. A copy of the latest code of audit practice, approved by both Houses of Parliament late last year, is now on the book.

In carrying out an audit, the auditor must satisfy himself as to the propriety and regularity of the accounts, and must satisfy himself that the body concerned has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. But auditors are precluded from making general judgments about the merits of particular policies and programmes.

The key to all this is of course the independence of auditors in carrying out their duties, so that they can do so without political interference in the affairs of the local authority or body concerned.

Under section 15(3) of the 1982 Act, the auditor is also required to consider whether he should make a report on any matter that comes to his attention while carrying out the audit, so that it may be considered by the body concerned or brought before the attention of the public. Such reports are known as auditors' public interest reports, and the auditor is required to consider whether they should be prepared and sent to a body immediately—an auditor's immediate report—or at the conclusion of the audit.

Section 18(3) to (6) of the 1982 Act set out the arrangements for consideration of the public interest report and its disclosure. Essentially, the procedure is that the report is sent by the auditor to the authority concerned, and the authority must then take the report into consideration as soon as practicable. The authority is required to include the report among the documents open for inspection by the public before the meeting at which the report is to be considered. Section 18(5) of the 1982 Act also provides that the report shall be open to the public for inspection for six years after that meeting.

The main problem with the existing law is that, because the present requirement is that an immediate report shall be taken into consideration by the body only as soon as practicable, that effectively means that the contents of the report may not be publicly available until some months after its issue. Even then, it is published only in the sense that it comprises part of the papers for a council meeting. The fact that an immediate report has been produced may not be widely known and, in extreme cases, may not be known at all.

The committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business, the Widdicombe inquiry, considered the arrangements for the publicity of auditors' public interest reports. The inquiry's report made a number of proposals for improving publicity. In particular, it was recommended that the chief executive of the local authority should be placed under a duty immediately to notify all members of the body of the receipt of a report in the public interest; to provide a copy of any such report to members on request and to make copies available to the public for inspection.

In the White Paper "The Government's Response to the Widdicombe Report of Inquiry", the Government proposed to go further and to make legislative changes to require that on receipt of an auditor's report, the chief finance office must forthwith send copies to all councillors; copies must be available immediately for public inspection at times and places to be advertised; the auditor must take such steps as he considers necessary to publicise his findings and finally, he must also make copies available to the public for a suitable fee and send copies to councillors if, for any reason, the chief finance officer does not act as required under the previous recommendations.

Those proposals have been further revised in the light of recent experience and following discussions with the Audit Commission. It is now proposed that the duty to publish a public interest report should be placed on the body concerned rather than on the chief finance officer, and that is what the Bill sets out to achieve. The reason is that not all such bodies are formally required to have a chief finance officer, and there may be cases where the report is critical of the chief finance officer. In that case, he would not be the most appropriate person to be given such responsibility.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for the clear and helpful way in which he is setting out the terms of the Bill. He is doing that with the care that I would expect from someone who knows as much about local government as my hon. Friend does.

My hon. Friend said earlier that there are certain things that the auditor is precluded from investigating and he is now describing the publication of immediate public interest reports. Should the auditor be precluded from considering those things that he is precluded from considering? Would publication of some of those things which the auditor is precluded from considering be a good thing in the public interest?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point, but that point ranges much wider than this narrow and simple proposal, as befits such a modest Bill that came 14th in the ballot. I do not want to open up what might be a more controversial subject.

With regard to local authorities, it is the auditor's job to examine what has been done and judge whether it has been done properly, efficiently and in the public interest. It is not his job to look behind what has been done to the policies. That is what we elect councillors for. If the auditor had to give an opinion, that would probably remove his complete independence from the politics of local government which is probably his most valuable asset as he moves from local authority to local authority examining what is happening and deciding whether the money has been well spent or wasted. He does not move from authority to authority asking himself whether he would have decided to spend money in the way that the authority has spent it. That is a wider issue and it touches on the heart of the independence of local auditors and of audit in central Government, through the National Audit Office.

The auditors consider whether a particular project has been handled properly; they do not consider the politics behind it. If I had included that wider examination in the Bill, I would have been speaking to a rather larger audience, and I also doubt whether the Bill would have passed through Standing Committee with the facility that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and I managed to achieve so skilfully.

In the interests of defining the scope of the Bill as tightly as possible, and preventing boarders to a Bill with a wider scope, I must stress that it applies only to auditors' immediate public interest reports. It does not apply to them in general. Where the auditor chooses to await the completion of the audit before making a public interest report, he will do so because the need for action and disclosure is less pressing. In other words, if the Bill is enacted, the auditor will have to judge whether the situation that he finds during an overall audit is so urgent and glaring that he must report on it immediately, or whether he decides that it can wait until he produces the main body of his report. The immediate report does not fall within the scope of the present law, perhaps because the circumstances were not properly foreseen; that is the narrow point which the Bill addresses.

The existing provisions of the 1982 Act are considered sufficient for an overall report. If the auditor considers it appropriate, he can make a report immediately, whereupon the changes that I am proposing in the Bill would apply. The Bill is designed to entitle the public to see an auditor's immediate public interest report, to copy it and to be supplied with a copy at reasonable cost. It requires the body concerned upon which the auditor has reported to advertise the report and provide for sanctions comparable to those in the current provisions of the 1982 Act—if the local authority concerned fails to comply with what I hope very shortly will become law. It also gives the auditor some fallback powers to ensure that, even if all those provisions fail, he can make his report known.

There is much talk about open government, and over the past 11 years we have, little by little, achieved rather more open government that we had before. The Bill is a small, modest but very necessary step towards providing more opportunities for the public to know sooner rather than later what the independent scrutineers of local authority action—and sometimes inaction—are examining. I am happy to say that after discussions with the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) the Labour party is in full agreement with this small, but fairly significant, step towards open government. In the spirit of co-operation that is newly rife in the House on many local government matters, I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on securing his place in the ballot—it is three places above mine—and on introducing this important Bill, which has reached this advanced stage after only two minutes' scrutiny in Committee. That tells us two things. First, as my hon. Friend said, there is complete agreement on the need for and merit of the measure. Secondly, it is valuable to consider Bills on Report on Fridays when there is an opportunity to talk a little longer about measures. I stress the word "little" to assure my hon. Friend, because he has a train to catch.

I congratulate my hon. Friend also on the timing of this further stage, because the whole world, let alone the whole country, must be aware that we have a little difficulty within Parliament with regard to the future structure and financing of local government.

Surely not.

My hon. Friend the Minister says, "Surely not." There is a matter of interpretation of the "we". I made the point that there was all-party support for the measure, and there is an all-party problem about how to pay for local government. We in Parliament have a little difficulty. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I was not referring to the Government in isolation.

Interestingly enough, my constituency annual general meeting is to be held tomorrow morning. I recall the occasion last year when we were about to implement the community charge as a means of introducing more accountability in local government. Some of my constituents and Conservative party activists were a little nervous about what the community charge was likely to do for our electoral fortunes. I said to them that there is no soft option on how to pay for local government. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire that there is no soft option, either, on how to make local government more accountable. His Bill is one of many steps in achieving that accountability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) may have been extremely concerned, as I was, by the intervention yesterday by our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he referred to the statement of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment being made on the Ides of March. The point that concerned me is that the Ides of March is 15 March, not 21 March. When I was at school I learned the rhyme, "March, July, October, May makes nones the seventh, Ides the fifteenth day." If our right hon. Friend was incorrect in that respect, would he also be incorrect in other parts of his intervention?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for raising that point. Some people may say that our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was wrong about one or two other matters as well.

Hear, hear.

My hon.. Friend the Member for East Hampshire gives a loud chorus of support. I congratulate him also not only on securing the passage of this measure, which the House will wholeheartedly support today, but on nearly persuading me back in 1987 and early 1988—one of our conversations was in a London taxi in a traffic jam—that there was a fatal flaw in our community charge arrangements and that we should put something into the system that would take account of people's ability to meet the demands of local government finance. I was not persuaded of his argument then, because I felt that his suggestion would not work.

However, my hon. Friend deserves congratulations on having raised that matter and on contributing to the argument that has brought the measure to this stage. It is to the credit of the Government that we were positive in introducing a measure that was designed to improve the accountability of local government and to broaden the base of those who should pay for local government. I am in no doubt that those two measures have been successful. I do not believe that anybody wants to return to a system in which a small number of people pay for local government while many people who enjoy the benefits of local government pay absolutely nothing.

As this measure and the 1982 legislation, which the Bill would amend, contribute to local government accountability, we should take the opportunity to remind ourselves that accountability works at two levels. First, it works at the level of the electorate. If a local authority achieves economy, efficiency and effectiveness, that should be visible in the charges that it levies on its electorate when it sets a charge, whether it be the community charge, the new local services tax or whatever—even the old rating system.

It is quite interesting—this is a partisan point—that in my part of the world, north Yorkshire and east Yorkshire, North Yorkshire county council is levying, through the districts, I accept, a community charge of £140 less than in the neighbouring county of Humberside, which is a Labour authority. That is notwithstanding that the Government, in their infinite generosity, have given the people of Humberside a larger grant than they have given the people of North Yorkshire. It cannot be said against us that we have fixed the figures in favour of North Yorkshire. Indeed, members of my district council in Ryedale say that the figures have been firmly fixed against part of North Yorkshire. Year after year, even under the old rating system as much as under the community charge, we have seen Government grant scraped from the shire districts and put into inner-London areas and boroughs such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), where there is a greater need to spend.

My constituents would be most concerned to hear that they had been moved to inner London. Many of them prefer to consider themselves in Essex.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me straight on that matter. The surburban sprawl of London, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, causes us to be a little hazy about geography and where county boundaries start. In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, the people of Wanstead and Woodford are extremely fortunate to be in the county of Essex rather than in the borough of Haringey, which is not much further down the road. They can see, just as people in Wandsworth and Lambeth can see, that economy, efficiency and effectiveness—the prerequisites that local authorities should set out to achieve—are very visible in the charges that are levied from one borough to the next. That is a formidable argument for moving towards a form of unitary authority. In North Yorkshire, we are likely to have an interesting debate about whether we should be run by North Yorkshire county council or the district councils.

Without widening the debate, if it turned out that the county council was abolished, I would urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist tinkering too much with district council boundaries. Many of my constituents in rural Ryedale would not take kindly to their local affairs being dominated by the urban needs of York or of Scarborough. It would be a worry were we to carve up the district council map in North Yorkshire.

I said that there are two levels at which accountability is achieved. One is the electorate, and the second is clearly the proper scrutiny of local authority accounts. We cannot expect the ordinary man in the street to do that. That is why it is right for independent auditors, who make no judgment on the policies that are being implemented, to have a duty to ensure that everything has been done that should be done to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

There is one area in which the Audit Commission, in an umbrella sense, and the individual independent auditor who is looking into the affairs of a local authority, can build on Government policy over the past two or three years, and where such scrutiny is crucial. I refer to competitive tendering. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well, many allegations have been made, right across the country, that local authorities have fixed the competitive tendering process in favour of their in-house labour forces, and have not given outside or private firms a fair crack of the whip.

I must stress that I am not bringing any evidence to my hon. Friend that that practice exists in my constituency, because I believe that Ryedale district council has been one of the authorities that have led the way in implementing Government policy. It built a Chinese wall within the district, saying, "We shall have a team from the authority to scrutinise what the in-house capability is doing, and another team to scrutinise what the private-sector firm is doing." That policy has been largely successful. From his reaction to what I have just said, it appears that my hon. Friend has taken that important point firmly on board. No organisation apart from the independent auditor is capable of checking that practice.

It is vital that any adverse report should be brought out into the public domain immediately. That is why the Bill is so important, and why I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting it this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire once again on his Bill.

There is, of course, so much more that one could say about the future of local government at this important time because it is at a watershed. For many years, we have heard the cry that local authorities have been spending more than they should and have been involving themselves in affairs that are beyond their purpose. The local government commission, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred to yesterday, which will consider the structure of local government and what the local authorities should deliver, is the right approach.

The open way in which my right hon. Friend has shown that he is prepared to consult not only the parties in the House, but as many local authorities and local authority organisations as possible is an admirable approach. The local authority organisations and the electorate will be asked, "Tell us what you want from local government. Tell us how you want it structured." My right hon. Friend has decided what needed to be decided—that, in two years, we shall have a different system of paying for local government. In the meantime, there will be a greater sense of fairness about community charge payments, because they will have been substantially reduced by the bold measure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement on Tuesday.

However, none of that is enough, because underlying all those things must be a proper structure for the professional scrutiny of what local authorities do. Whether we have a community charge, a local services tax or any other scheme that another political party may suggest, there must be proper scrutiny. The independent auditor has a part to play. If something wrong or untoward is found, it should be brought out into the open at once. That is why the Bill is so important for the future of local government.

If the atmosphere in the Chamber is not as charged this morning as it was 18 hours ago, we are nevertheless discussing another aspect of local government finance with sober diligence. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on successfully steering his Bill through its various stages to its Third Reading today. Although it is a short Bill, its shortness should not blind us to its importance.

In his interesting and important speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised several points which I should like to discuss immediately. As he said, we scrutinised the Bill in Committee for only two minutes. That was not because we were neglecting to do our duty, but because there was all-party agreement about what we were trying to achieve. I have had considerable discussions in Committee and elsewhere with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and there is no doubt that he and all parties realise the importance of a proper audit of local authority affairs. We welcome that——

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is sorry not to be in his place this morning. Given the momentous news of this week, I am sure that the Minister will realise that my hon. Friend has many other extremely important tasks relating to the debate about local government. I have been asked to stand in, and am delighted to do so. Of course, I and all my colleagues give our wholehearted support to this important Bill.

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, and very much welcome her presence in the Chamber today. I fully understand that the hon. Member for Brightside has busy commitments elsewhere——

Burying shot foxes.

My hon. Friend says, "Burying shot foxes"—how uncharitable. I doubt whether there are any foxes in Sheffield, but there may be some urban foxes.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made an important contribution to the debate on local government. Perhaps his error in suggesting that yesterday was the Ides of March had something to do with his schooling. I am, of course, entirely prejudiced in this matter, having had the pleasure and the honour of teaching at Harrow school for 14 years, but my right hon. Friend went to Eton which, I was told by my pupils, was known as "the drain in the plain", while the establishment at which I taught was known as "the dump on the hump". Nevertheless——

As I too went to Eton, I can assure my hon. Friend that education there has obviously improved since the days of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

I am relieved to hear that. Since I left Harrow school, an enormous amount has happened under the headmastership of Mr. Ian Beer, which has been in line with the traditions of that important and influential educational establishment which still leads the way in much of British education.

I turn now to what the hon. Member for Ryedale said about Humberside and North Yorkshire——

I am my hon. Friend's hon. Friend.

Of course—my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend came to see me earlier this year to discuss the level of central Government grant for his area. We had an extremely amicable and detailed discussion. His constituents are lucky to be served by an hon. Member who understands the difficult details of local government finance so well. It is a rare pleasure for a local government finance Minister to have such a detailed and constructive discussion on such an important issue.

My hon. Friend said that some of his constituents may wish to choose in future whether their local government affairs should fall within the ambit of the Humberside or North Yorkshire authorities. That will be a matter for the local government commission, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to set up later in the year.

I must correct my hon. Friend. there is absolutely no question of people in North Yorkshire wanting anything whatsoever to do with Humberside, except perhaps to join the wake following the scrapping of Humberside, not only as a county council but as a concept. Many of them would much prefer their area to be called East Yorkshire. There is no question of Ryedale or any part of my Ryedale constituency, including the bits which used to be in the old East Riding, wanting anything to do with Humberside. The point is whether they would choose to be governed by county hall at Northallerton, by North Yorkshire county council or by their own district councils of Ryedale, Hambleton, Scarborough and so on. We are looking forward to the public debate on that.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should be a public debate on that issue. It is not for me to prejudge it—far from it—but I hear the point that he has made loudly and clearly on behalf of his constituents.

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of counties, the House may remember that my predecessor, now Lord Jenkin, was instrumental in abolishing the Greater London council. I hope that, in moving towards restoring some of the old counties, restoration of the GLC will not necessarily be on my hon. Friend's agenda.

The London authorities are unitary authorities. Although we shall listen to comments on the future of London authorities, it is unlikely that we shall wish to see substantial change in them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire to discuss what the auditor was precluded from investigation. That is an important point. Paragraph 60 of the code of audit practice says:

"The auditor is able to form an independent and impartial view on how an authority is conducting its affairs."

Those reports are an important means of informing the public. But it is not the function of the auditor to express an opinion on the wisdom of decisions taken by authorities in the lawful exercise of their discretion. It is the auditors' responsibility to consider the effects of policy and to examine the arrangements by which policy decisions are carried out.

As paragraph 39 of the code of practice explains:

"Auditors should consider for example whether policy objectives have been determined and policy decisions taken with appropriate authority."

He has to consider to what extent policy objectives are set and decisions are based on sufficient, relevant and reliable financial and other data, with the critical underlying assumptions made explicit. He also has a duty to consider whether there are satisfactory arrangements for considering alternative options, including the indentification, selection and evaluation of such options. He must consider whether established policy aims and objectives have been clearly set out, whether subsequent decisions on the implementation of policy are consistent with the approved aims and objectives and have been taken with proper authority at the appropriate level, and whether the resultant instructions to staff accord with the approved policy aims and decisions and are clearly understood by those concerned.

All that adds up to the Government's desire that local government should carry out its duties as efficiently as possible, that local councillors should be aware of their responsibility for policy making, and that the management decisions of local authorities should be of the highest quality. The auditor has a most important role to play in all that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale mentioned competitive tendering. As part of their work, auditors examine the arrangements made by councils under the compulsory competitive tendering regime. Indeed, auditors have been critical of the way in which many authorities have acted. Several public interest reports have been issued by auditors on that subject. In the light of one such report, a council reconsidered its earlier decision and awarded the contract to the external private company which had submitted the lowest tender. There is an important role for auditors there.

I should perhaps make it clear that, when I refer to a local authority auditor, I do so as a shorthand expression, because the Bill will apply to an auditor appointed under part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Under that Act, auditors are appointed to a range of bodies. The full list of such bodies is given in section 12 of the Act, but they range from a parish meeting through the panoply of what we normally understand by local authorities, including joint committees of them. Other bodies that are subject to the Act include port authorities and land drainage boards. Of course, as clause 1(6) makes clear, the Bill does not apply to health service bodies, but, with that exception, the Bill applies to all the bodies covered by part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

My hon. Friend has touched a chord on a matter which it has been in my mind to raise with him for some time. He referred to the auditors of parish meetings. My hon. Friend will have several parishes surrounding the fair city of Salisbury. He will know that parish councils have been a little upset at what they considered to be excessive charges levied by the auditors of their affairs. Can he assure the House that the Government take the complaints of parish councils seriously and that not only the cost of audits but the structure within which they are done will be examined, and, indeed, that parish and town councils will continue to have a substantial role to play in future under whatever structure we end up with?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, we intend to continue to rely on parishes to play a substantial and important role. It is not widely appreciated that, outside the shire districts, about 50 per cent. of the country does not have the advantage of a local parish council. Certain places have a community council. We wish to ensure that the duties of parish councils are not neglected or lost.

Like my hon. Friend, I have many parish councils in my constituency. They vary in size and character enormously. Sometimes, they cover a small number of electors—perhaps even 50 or 100. Another parish council may represent the interests of 12,000 or 15,000 people. Indeed, the largest parish councils represent some 30,000 people. So we certainly cannot ignore parish councils, and nor shall we do so.

On my hon. Friend's point, he may be aware that there is a Bill currently before the House on the subject. The Parish Councils (Access to Information) Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). It would not be right for me to comment at this stage on what might happen to that Bill. The Government are aware of the importance of proper auditing throughout the local government system.

Today's Bill is particularly relevant to local authorities—using the words "local" and "authorities" in their narrow sense. But it is important for the House to realise that many organisations are involved in the work of the Audit Commission and local government auditors. I should like to describe something of the work of a local authority auditor so that the importance of the Bill can be seen in context against its proper background. I should also like to answer in detail some of the questions raised by my hon. Friends.

The House will recall that, on 18 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), whose interest in and knowledge of the matter is widely acknowledged, initiated a debate on extending the role of the Audit Commission. During my reply to the stimulating ideas put forward by my hon. Friend I had occasion to note some of the duties of appointed auditors. The three duties that I specifically mentioned at that time were, first, to check the regularity and propriety of the authority's accounts and their compliance with statutes and regulations; secondly, to satisfy himself that the authority had made proper arrangements to secure value for money: that is, the three Es, economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and thirdly—to comply with the code of audit practice. I shall come back to that point.

One of the campaigns which our hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has been assiduously and effectively pursuing has been to involve the National Audit Office in the work of the national health service. My hon. Friend the Minister has already pointed out that the Bill does not apply to health bodies. Would he comment on whether it should perhaps apply to them?

I might be in danger of repetition of the previous debate if I were to cover that point now, but perhaps I may refer to auditing the health service before I conclude my remarks.

An auditor's duties extend wider than the points that I have mentioned. He must hear objections to the accounts from any local government elector. That is not widely recognised. An auditor must certify completion of the audit and give an opinion on the accounts. He must apply to the court for a declaration where it appears that any item of account is contrary to law. He must certify, where it appears that there has been a loss caused by wilful misconduct or failure to account, the sum or the amount of loss due from the person or persons responsible. Finally, he must hold an extraordinary audit if directed to do so by the commission or the Secretary of State. Those are awesome responsibilities.

Many of those matters are covered by the code of audit practice, as it is usually called. My hon. Friends will recall that, in November 1990, I had the duty of bringing the latest version of the code of audit practice before a Standing Committee of this House. They will also recall that the commission's code—it is the commission's, not the Government's—met with approval from all parties.

The code of audit practice devotes several paragraphs, Nos. 57 to 63, to reports in the public interest. Paragraph 58 includes a dozen sub-paragraphs that deal with the sort of items that might occasion a public interest report. The list is intended not to exclude other possibilities, but to act as an indication of items that, in the commission's view, would warrant a public interest report.

Over the past few years, auditors have made a number of important items the subject of public interest reports. They have frequently been concerned at the failure of authorities to keep arrears under control. Reports frequently highlight problems in management and financial control systems, and where there have been delays in setting rates and balancing accounts. Auditors have had a great deal to say in reports that have drawn attention to the inadequacies of authorities in preparing for the introduction of new legislation and in administering competitive tendering and housing benefit.

In particular cases, the auditor has warned of the grave financial position facing an authority. In such cases, the auditor has advised of the need to bring expenditure into balance with available resources and to avoid the use of costly creative accounting measures. Reports have also related to fraud and other special investigations. Some of those have been recurrent themes in such reports. Others have been particularly prevalent for a time, but have become less so as authorities have taken note of and acted on reports.

That is in the best traditions of following best practice, and it is encouraging to see that the number of reports that auditors have felt it necessary to make has dropped from 89 in 1985–86 to 36 in 1989–90. Over the same period, the subjects covered by reports have declined from 153 to 91. That reflects the excellent work that auditors have done in drawing attention to inadequacies in procedures and encouraging good practice within local government. Ultimately, the responsibility for acting on the findings of reports rests with the local authority concerned. Nevertheless, auditors' reports undoubtedly provide a useful way of promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness within local government.

I cite as an example a specific case of an auditor's report on a particular council. I am not at liberty to reveal which council it is, not least because I do not know. When auditors produce these reports, they ensure that we cannot know which authority is concerned or its political control. In this particular case, the auditor reported that the council had decided that new software would be required to implement revised housing benefit regulations and had entered into an agreement for the supply of a package which failed to become operational by its original target date. Delays occurred in the delivery of specific computer programmes and in the ability of the company to rectify shortcomings in the software. Software difficulties were exacerbated by the need to upgrade the computer and to relocate the housing benefit section, a faulty computer link and the introduction of a system without full implementation of the intended controls. Consequently, inaccuracies occurred in computer processing, resulting in overpayments of housing benefits totalling £1·2 million.

The auditor reports that problems had arisen because of delays in the delivery of computer programmes, the inability of the software company to rectify faults in its programmes, the implementation of a complex computer system without adequate processing controls and the failure of the new housing benefit system to interact with the council's other accounting systems. The auditor reports that, although appropriate recovery action was taken, a bad debts provision of £375,000 had to be made as a result. The contract with the original software company has since been terminated, and the processing of future housing benefit transactions entrusted to another software company.

The auditor's report was helpful to the authority in learning lessons from the mistakes that arose and in seeking to avoid their recurrence. As the code of audit practice says, auditors' reports are intended to be constructive rather than condemnatory. The Bill is designed to ensure that such reports are available more quickly and that they are better publicised, so that they become an even more effective tool than at present.

One of the auditor's responsibilities is to satisfy himself that the authority has made proper arrangements for securing value for money. In recent years, when people mention value for money they often do so pejoratively. I hope that the climate in which the term is used is changing, because value for money undoubtedly means value for people. It means getting all possible value from every pound of taxpayers' money spent, whether it is raised locally or centrally. People will benefit if there is good value for money.

Where there is room for improvement, the auditor may consider that a report in the public interest is justified. I shall explain how this process of consideration of value for money within local authorities normally operates. The value-for-money study process starts with a central study on a particular topic resulting in a national commission report and an audit guide. Individual auditors then apply the report to the local circumstances at the individual authorities.

Auditors are expected to discuss their audit plans with their clients. If the particular local circumstances are such that carrying out the full study would be inappropriate, the auditors would either carry out a small-scale study tailored to the particular authority or substitute a more appropriate local project for the national study. The final judgment on whether a project is appropriate rests with the auditor, not the commission or the local authority.

In the last couple of years, the Audit Commission has produced reports concerning primary education, museums, art galleries, support for the arts, sports, parks and open spaces, urban regeneration, among others, as well as various studies relating to the police. For 1991–92, subjects to be studied include the strategic role of local authorities in housing, social services management and highways competition.

Looking further into the future, the commission is proposing to carry out major studies looking at client role management, housing benefit and rent arrears and education for 16 to 19-year-olds. In addition, smaller scale projects are planned which will examine development control, special education needs and further aspects of police work, such as traffic policing.

On 1 October 1990, the Audit Commission became responsible for the audit of the national health service. The duties of an auditor of local authorities apply in large measure to the audit of health authorities and will apply to the audit of the new NHS trusts. The Bill does not apply to health service bodies because of their different constitutional position.

Local authorities are responsible to their electors. Health service bodies are responsible to the Secretary of State, who is in turn responsible to Parliament. That difference in the constitutional position was fully reflected in the debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The difference is therefore reflected in the changes to the Local Government Finance Act 1982 brought about by the 1990 Act. The health service bodies are now being treated in a way consistent with the earlier debate and decision.

I take one subject more as an example of one of the activities that the Audit Commission is proposing to study, and that is housing benefit and rent arrears. Local government is the conduit for a substantial tranche of central Government's income support in the form of housing benefit. Very large sums are involved.

The efficiency with which councils manage the housing benefit system has implications for the relationship between local and central Government, for the costs borne by councils and for the consequential costs borne by applicants if the system is inefficient. The study will examine how councils deliver this service and will illuminate best practice, but it will also examine the experience of benefit applicants and will track the effect of the benefit system on rent arrears, particularly on the part of council tenants.

Once studies have been produced, auditors will examine the extent to which authorities are taking note of advice. Where authorities have not taken note of the potential for greater value for money identified in such studies, they may consider the matter to be of sufficient importance to merit making a report in the public interest. If the auditor considers such a report should be an immediate report, the Bill would ensure that the auditor's findings immediately reached the public domain.

I am concerned about the fact that the Bill makes provision for immediate reports which it does not make for less immediate reports. Will the Minister explain the distinction between the two and say why publicity should apply to one but not to the other?

I shall be dealing with that important issue. First, I wish to deal with a study that is proposed and which will interest my hon. Friend. I refer to client role management. The need for a client-contractor split has been well rehearsed in commission study work, but the precise details of the contractual relationships have not been set out. Moreover, the character of client structures would bear further analysis. The study will explore the alternative arrangements made by councils to administer contracts and examine the impact of such arrangements on central services, such as the introduction of service level agreements. It will also examine the variety of contractual arrangements, procedures and quality assurance criteria. Although it will be focused on services, the study will endeavour to explore the extent to which ideas, such as quality assurance, have permeated other council services.

The management of education provision for young people aged between 16 and 19 has had to adapt to a number of significant changes in recent years. Those changes include work-related further education funding, the local management of schools and colleges and the fall in the population of that age group. There are likely to be further initiatives nationally in an endeavour to raise participation levels.

It is important to realise the importance of participation levels. Only yesterday, I visited Walworth school, in south London, which has tackled the problem head on and has introduced, with the help of the Government's urban programme and the private sector, an important "world of work" unit into the school. One of the many achievements of that initiative at Walworth school has been to increase participation rates substantially among that crucial age group, and I congratulate the school on that.

The Audit Commission will be studying and exploring the steps that LEAs are taking to cope with present pressures and prepare for new initiatives of that type. It will examine the arrangements made to assess need, to identify the wide range of potential providers locally, and to position authorities' own supply. The study will also explore whether it is possible to construct a "value-added" methodology which could be used to compare the performance of different suppliers.

In addition to those major studies, three smaller-scale projects proposed by the commission include a study into development control. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be aware of the passions that are aroused by development control in their constituencies. In 1983, the commission published a report, researched by the pre-existing audit inspectorate, on efficiency in development control. There have been some significant changes since then. Moreover, development pressures have been acute at times since that report. The study will re-examine the process. If possible, those authorities studied in 1983 will be revisited so that longitudinal considerations can be taken into account. The study will also explore the trade-off between the efficient processing of applications and the quality of decisions taken.

There is, of course, great public interest in the police and their efficiency. The theme currently being considered by the Audit Commission is aspects of traffic policing. Traffic policing absorbs 12 per cent. of overall police resources and has a significant effect on the average citizen. The management of traffic movements, pedestrian flows and car parking grows ever more difficult as car ownership increases. The study would examine the criteria of value for money in traffic-related policing functions and take into account the contribution which police activity can make to wider environmental and urban management issues.

The Minister's reference to the police calls to mind two other important issues. First, does he agree that Audit Commission reports into the police force, eight or nine of which have been published, have been effective in showing how the management of the police force and the effectiveness, efficiency and economy criteria can be better delivered?

Secondly, does he agree that if, at some future date, we change the overall structure of the police force—many hon. Members feel that there are too many police forces and that some change in structure may be inevitable—the role of auditors can be an effective way of ensuring that the management of the police force, whatever its structure, is more effective?

I acknowledge the professional experience and expertise of my hon. Friend in police work. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on responsibilities that come within the purview of the Home Secretary, but I acknowledge the importance of the work done by the Audit Commission and the speedy way in which police forces have reacted, in the interest of their officers and the public whom they serve, in seeking to improve the standard of service they offer, which, by almost any standard, is extremely high.

Following yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, a structural change that could be considered for local government is the removal of the precepting power of the police and the possibility of taking the police into central control, a matter which arouses strong passions. The precepting power of local authorities causes difficulties for local authorities which have no power over how much the police, fire authorities and other bodies spend.

My hon. Friend is right; the role of joint authorities for police, fire and civil defence is a matter of some concern, and I have met a number of such authorities to discuss their funding position. We do not intend in the review to make any commitments on that type of arrangement for the police, not least because it is a matter of grave constitutional concern that we take great care before considering any changes that might upset the important balance that currently exists between county constabularies, the grouped police authorities and the role of central Government. Perhaps I had better say no more about that relationship at this stage, because it is delicate and, as my hon. Friend said, passions run high.

I should like to deal with special education needs. Local education authorities radically revised their management of special education to match the requirements of the 1981 Act. The study will be concerned with the identification of best practice as it has emerged. One particular focus will be the problems of LEA-wide financial management, given that resource demands emerge on a pupil-by-pupil basis.

My hon. Friend asked why the Bill was concerned only with immediate reports. The choice between making an immediate report and making a report at the conclusion of the audit is a decision for the auditor. Any report can be made an immediate report, but the auditor may decide that the objective of improving value for money—or whatever purpose the report is intended to achieve—is better accomplished by making his report later. However, immediate reports will be the general rule.

It may be helpful to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members if I explain just why it is that, when an auditor makes a report, it is not there and then made available for comment at large. The reason lies in section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which prohibits either the appointed auditor or the commission from disclosing information relating to a particular body or person and obtained pursuant to the Act except with the consent of the body or person; for the purposes of the auditor's or commission's functions; or for the purposes of criminal proceedings.

Contravention is punishable by a fine and/or up to two years' imprisonment. That is a severe sanction, and naturally it is taken very seriously. The prohibition applies to all aspects of an auditor's work, including reports, whether they be immediate public interest reports or reports made at the conclusion of audit.

Given the severity of the sanctions my hon. Friends and other hon. Members may perhaps be puzzled as to how reports ever become public knowledge if the body or person concerned does not consent to disclosure of information. The answer lies in section 18(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. When a body meets formally to consider an auditor's report, the agenda supplied to the members of the meeting must be accompanied by the report and—this is the crucial provision—the report must not be excluded from the matter supplied for the benefit of any newspaper or from the documents open to inspection by the public.

It is of course at this point that we see the significance of the Bill. It parallels a similar provision that already applies in Scotland. The provisions that apply in Scotland were enacted under section 185 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. In Scotland, under section 102 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Controller of Audit makes reports to the Commission for Local Authority Accounts on matters arising out of or in connection with the accounts of a local authority, so that such matters may be considered by the local authority concerned or brought to the attention of the public. The 1973 Act states that a copy of the report shall be sent to the local authority named in the report.

Under the amendments made by the 1989 Act, the Controller of Audit may now also send a copy of the report to any other person he thinks fit. In addition, the local authority concerned is required to send a copy of the report to each member of the authority and make additional copies available for public inspection. The Bill mirrors those provisions and introduces similar arrangements in England and Wales.

The Bill would ensure that an auditor's intention that a report should be brought immediately to the attention of the public could not be thwarted by procedural devices of the body subject to the report. Let me say at once that the great majority of bodies have behaved perfectly properly. However, on some occasions reports have been delayed when, in the public interest, they should have been seen immediately. The Bill seeks to prevent such delays.

The Bill has four principal features, all of which take effect as soon as an immediate report is received by the body. First, it entitles the public to see an auditor's immediate public interest report, to copy it and be supplied with a copy at reasonable cost. Secondly, it requires the body concerned to advertise the report. Thirdly, it provides for sanctions comparable to those of the current provisions of the 1982 Act. Fourthly, it gives the auditor fallback powers to ensure that the report is made known.

The Government are committed to making local government more accountable. This Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire is a helpful measure towards that desirable end, and it has the Government's strong support.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on his good fortune in coming relatively high in the ballot, although he did not come high enough to be able to choose a controversial Bill. I also congratulate him on his success in choosing such a sensible Bill and thank him for the clarity with which he explained its provisions and set out its terms and purposes.

I regret that during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) which I was enjoying so much, I had to nip out of the Chamber to collect some further briefing material which had not arrived by the time the House sat this morning. Therefore, I was unable to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the detailed questions that I had hoped to ask the Minister. He may be able to answer them during my speech, so I shall be generous in giving way to him if he feels able, at any stage, to answer them. I confess that some of the points that I wish to raise are rather detailed and technical, so I should be happy for my hon. Friend to write to me rather than to answer them off the cuff, if he thought that that was preferable.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for answering one of the important questions that I had wanted to raise—the position of Scotland. Scotland has always been an anomaly compared with England and Wales. Often Bills—including this Bill—do not apply to Scotland, but only to England and Wales. Indeed, the final sentence of the Bill states:

"This Act extends to England and Wales only."

One always wonders why on earth that should be the case. What is it about the Scots that makes their legislative powers so different?

In trying to answer that question for myself, I turned to the Government's response to the report of the Widdicombe committee of inquiry. Paragraph 6.17 of the response states:

"The proposed legislative changes referred to in paragraph 6.6"

they detail what is set out in the Bill—

"would apply equally to reports of the Controller of Audit."

So I examined the Bill and discovered that they did not seem to apply and I wondered why not. My hon. Friend answered my query by saying that not only has Scotland been dealt with but that it has been dealt with earlier than England. I wonder why Scotland appears to be dealt with more expeditiously than England and Wales. I have no doubt that the provisions of the Bill would have been appreciated if they had been introduced earlier in England and Wales as they have no doubt been valuable in Scotland.

I have been trying to find out what the Bill is all about. I read the commendably brief report of the Committee that considered the Bill—the sitting of which lasted for no more than two minutes. That report was not as illuminating as one would normally expect, so I am little wiser or better informed about the details of the Bill.

What was the motive behind the Bill? Did it arise because of the debt swaps for which many local councils went in and which, eventually, the House of Lords decided to be ultra vires? If the Bill was in some way prompted by those debt swaps, I certainly believe that the auditors should have been involved, or should get involved in such transactions.

One of the powers available to the auditors is the ability to apply to the courts if they consider that a local authority is doing something that it has no right to do. Can the auditors therefore apply to the courts if a council is not doing something that it has a moral, if not legal, duty to do? My hon. Friend the Minister has already dwelt at some length on the failure of local authorities to collect rents, rates or the community charge—I should be grateful if he could give me further evidence of that. In fact there are many examples of such failure and one of the most glaring is what is happening in Lambeth now. The structure of local authorities seems to be relatively secure throughout most of the country, but in Lambeth services are breaking down, perhaps because the authority simply does not have the money, or perhaps because it is not collecting rents and the community charge. I should be grateful to hear what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has to say about that because I know that it concerns her greatly and that, in the past, she has spoken out courageously about it.

I am not sure whether it is in order for me to be drawn into this, but I am sure that you will keep me right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the greatest disservice to local government, the collection of taxes and the provision of services has been the Government's poll tax legislation and they have just learnt the lesson of that.

If the hon. Lady was correct her argument would apply to every council in the country, but other councils manage to provide a reasonable level of service and to collect the vast majority of their rents, rates and community charge.

The hon. Lady is correct that we are changing the community charge. I was absolutely delighted at yesterday's statement because I was never enthusiastic about the community charge, to the extent that I did not vote for it. I am therefore naturally delighted that we are to change the community charge, but that does not excuse or explain the total chaos into which the borough of Lambeth has fallen. As a matter of urgency an investigation into the extent of the outstanding arrears in rents and community charge in the borough of Lambeth should be carried out. In the borough of Lambeth, perhaps alone of all councils, local government is breaking down. That is not as a result of the community charge, but because the Labour party has been in control of that borough for too long.

Auditors can apply to a court if they consider that a local authority is doing something that it has no legal right to do, but can they also apply to the court if they consider that a local authority is not doing something that it has a legal duty to do—to collect rents and the community charge on behalf of the other electors and community charge payers of that authority? I should be happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Minister at any time should he wish to put me right or help me with further information.

About a month ago I sponsored the Public Safety Information Bill, which placed a requirement on certain local authorities and bodies to publicise reports of interest to the public. Those reports related to safety. If a safety defect was discovered at a football stadium there would have been an obligation to post a notice at the entrances to warn spectators that there was a danger of combustible rubbish somewhere in that stadium. Is there a difference in philosophy between the publicity applied to public interest reports for local authorities and the publicity to be given to public safety that would have applied under the Public Safety Information Bill? I regret to say that that Bill's Second Reading took place on the day that the country was brought to a complete halt by the falling of white fluffy stuff from the sky. Unfortunately there was an insufficient number of Members in the House to enable the Bill to receive its Second Reading. That Bill, however, raised issues of relevance to today's Bill.

What concerns me most about the details of the Bill is whether the sanctions to be imposed are enforceable. Clause 1(4) states:

"Any person who fails to comply with any requirement of subsection (2) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine".

Subsection (2) states

"When such a report is so received by a body … the body shall in addition forthwith supply a copy of the report to every member of the body"

Subsection (4) deals with

"any person who fails to comply with"

the requirements of subsection (2), but under subsection (2) there is no duty put on any person. The duty is put on a body, leaving aside the chairman of a parish meeting—for the purposes of this argument he is less important.

Subsection (2) puts a duty on a body to publicise a report, but subsection (4) provides that sanctions should be imposed on

"any person who fails to comply with any requirement of subsection (2)".

If a body, perhaps a local authority, has the duty to publicise a report that is a matter of immediate public interest, surely the members of the body have the duty to comply with that publicity requirement. It therefore seems rather curious that, under the Bill, the members of a body might be liable if they have not been given information about that very report.

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Clause 1(2) requires the "body or chairman"—the person to whom the ultimate sanction applies—to provide the publicity.

I am grateful for that helpful information, but I am not entirely sure that it covers my argument. I suspect that the "body or chairman" refers to the public body—perhaps the district or county council—or the chairman of a parish meeting. If the "chairman" refers to the chairman of a parish meeting, I suspect that the chairman is not considered relevant for the purposes of a local authority.

I hesitate to intervene in this interesting debate, but I believe that I can help. The word "person", as a legal term, includes a body.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. Although the word "person" includes a body, the word "body", curiously enough, does not include a person. Therefore, the body may still, ultimately, be liable for failing to provide the members of the body with the reports to which the publicity is meant to apply.

My hon. Friend makes some good points about bodies. To some extent, those reports will be looking for heads. What is my hon. Friend's view on the publication of notices that may criticise the very people who are supposed to publish them?

I shall cover that question in a few moments. Similarly, one could ask what would happen if a report were published by a chief executive of a council who, instead of arranging for publication himself, said that he told Mrs. Snooks, the chief clerk, to publish it, but that she did not seem to have done so. If Mrs. Snooks then says that she was not told to do so, the securing of a conviction under clause 1(4) would be difficult to achieve. It would be difficult to decide, under that clause, precisely who should be convicted and on which person in the local authority the duty to secure the publicity should be laid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) raised an important issue about reports criticising the people who might be under a duty to disclose them. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said that one purpose of the Bill is not to put a duty on a chief finance officer to publish a report because he might be the subject of a critical report. That may be so, but the council may also be the subject of a critical report and would be rather reluctant to publicise it. That is why the Bill places a duty on councils to publicise reports.

Is the council the right "person" on whom to place that duty? Would not it be more correct to put the duty on the auditor? If the council has an overall duty to publicise a report of public interest, it will be in a difficult position, because it may have to publicise a report that criticises it. That may affect the publicity that it gives to the immediate report. The advertisement that the council must place in local newspapers may never be read because it will be couched, intentionally, in such obscure terms. Everyone knows that criteria exist for making some advertisements more eye-catching than others. For example, one reads more assiduously an advertisement with much white space than a block of close-printed verbiage. Therefore, the council will ensure that advertisements for reports will be as obscure, unreadable and unattractive as possible. A school of people will try to make advertisements as attractive and noticeable and possible while, as a result of the Bill, another school will try to make them as unattractive and unproductive as possible. We have all seen planning notices at the back of newspapers which do not stand out at all. We may see them, but we do not read them. They exist simply to be avoided.

We could avert such a problem if the Bill did not place the duty of publicity on the council, which may be the subject of a critical report, any more than it does on the chief finance officer. The Bill has clearly moved away from that, but further progress in that direction is still to be made. There may be an opportunity in another place to make such progress.

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Clause 1(2) refers to one or more local newspapers. In my district council area, I could name seven or eight local newspapers. Although, together, they cover the whole district, no single newspaper does so. Has my hon. Friend any thoughts on that?

My hon. Friend raises a helpful issue which leads me to the corollary of what he says: some local newspapers have low circulations. Local councillors who are criticised in an immediate report by an auditor will choose to advertise in a newspaper with the lowest circulation possible, covering the smallest area. Necessarily, those newspapers will have the lowest cost of advertising because they will want to attract more advertising to boost sales. Local councils face stringent financial limits and will naturally choose the cheapest rates if they can get away with doing so.

Although the important publicity that is to be given to those immediate reports is a valuable move, I wonder whether the duty to provide such publicity is placed on the right person. In an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, I said that the Bill does not include health service bodies. I referred to the sensible work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) in trying to ensure that there was outside scrutiny of health service bodies. It is a pity, in some respects, that the publicity provided by the Bill should not apply to local authorities. After all, the publicity relates to matters of immediate public interest. Local authorities are concerned about such matters, as are the public. The public write to me far more frequently about my local health authorities than about my local authority, because health is a matter which affects us all. I wonder whether the publicity available under the Bill should also be available to immediate reports of a public interest relating to a health authority.

The Bill rightly gives the opportunity for increased publicity for immediate reports by the auditors of local authorities, but it does not appear to give the opportunity for similar publicity for reports praising local authorities. Local councillors are the subject of a constant barrage of criticism, sometimes from central Government and sometimes from the electors. When they hear the words "local government", most people feel that it is a subject in which they should not be interested and that it is a subject on which their eyes should glaze over—and they usually do.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday that it is increasingly difficult to find people of the proper quality to play the role of local councillors. I detect a slight change in the atmosphere in that respect, which I welcome. Local councillors and local authorities do an essential job and they should be encouraged in the same way as teachers, who do an essential job, should be encouraged. From time to time, councillors should be the subject of praise as well as of criticism. My concern about the atmosphere that used to exist—and which may no longer exist—is that auditors' reports are more likely to be immediate reports if they are critical of local authorities than if they praise local authorities for a job well done.

A report praising, for example, the city of Westminster for its efficient and effective litter collection service could be the subject of an immediate auditors' report if my proposals were taken into account. A report praising the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea for its most effective and early privatisation of the refuse collection service in Kensington could be the subject of publicity, insisted on by the auditors.

Local authority employment and local authority service are becoming increasingly difficult. It is interesting that, as a result of the Bill, it is probably only in local authority employment that a person who slips up on the job would face not simply a reprimand from the employer, but a criminal record. It is not surprising that recruitment to local authorities is lower than would be helpful. As a Member of Parliament, if I do not deal with my letters quickly, I may get rude letters of complaint from my constituents. I may even get rude letters of complaint in the local newspapers, which would receive far more publicity than the advertisements suggested in the Bill. I might even be thrown out by my electorate, but I would be most unlikely to face, as I understand the current legislation, a criminal record.

As a result of the Bill, if local authority employees failed to deal with their post quickly and if they failed to post or to distribute reports to the councillors who should receive them, they would face not only a reprimand, rude letters or a possible sacking, but a knock on the door and the possibility of a criminal record. That may discourage some people from going into local government service and it may be one reason why there has been some difficulty in providing effective and efficient local government service in recent years.

Despite my perhaps over-detailed and over-zealous questions on the Bill, I welcome it. I welcome the publicity that will be given to matters of great and immediate public interest and I wish the Bill well in the House and in the other place.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me, because you know how keen the competition has been this week to speak in debates on local government. I am tempted in the matter by a one-clause Bill, which I am more likely to understand. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on introducing it so well. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on his point that scrutiny and accountability are important in these matters. I second one among the many good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who asked whether the auditors can apply to the courts. That is critical in this matter, as I shall explain later.

The central point must be the role of the auditor. In carrying out the audit, he must satisfy himself of the propriety and regularity of the accounts, and that the body concerned has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. I am sure, because I believe that I am repeating the views of my hon. Friend the Minister, that Ministers have always respected the independence of auditors in carrying out their duties. To do otherwise could be construed as political interference, and I am sure that there is no wish for that.

What is the point of making recommendations if there is no follow-up? I propose to detail the experience in my area of an auditor's report and what has happened since it was published. I have here a detailed pamphlet entitled "District Auditor's Report". I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford will agree that that is its title. It goes into considerable detail about a local council. On the ninth page of tightly packed print, we come to point 38, entitled "Previous Audit Reports". The pamphlet says:

"I am concerned about the time it takes for the Council to implement recommendations agreed with my staff."

There is little point in having such a detailed report if nothing comes of it, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford has made.

The pamphlet makes further serious points. It refers to

"a lack of co-ordination between departments, which was leading to a loss of rent income … the fragmentation of ownership and the lack of objectives".

That is a reasonable generality. The pamphlet also refers to

"a lack of accurate information."

I am heartened to think that it is not merely Government Back Benchers who suffer from those points. The points are made in an auditor's report, which reveals a serious state of affairs.

I was under the impression that the report was a district auditor's report. I read it with care at the time, and I understood it to be a report. It was because there was no action on the report that I decided to write to the Audit Commission a little later to ask what would become of the report. The commission replied:

"Dear Mr. Knapman … In fact there has been no Audit Commission report"—

on the council.

"The District Auditor of the Council issued a public interest report in May of this year but that was part of fulfilment of his audit responsibilities and not a central directed Audit Commission study. Lest you think that this is a distinction without a difference, I should explain that the Commission has two functions, first to undertake studies into economy, efficiency and effectiveness in local government

and, second, to appoint auditors to all local authorities. We link these two duties together closely and local work usually follows central research. But the individual auditor of an authority is responsible for all reports issued on a particular council and those reports may cover Audit Commission work or, as in this case, other issues particular to that authority."

So the individual auditor is responsible for all the reports. What had happened to the individual auditor in this case? He had retired immediately after the preparation of the report. Immense expense had been gone to and some devastating remarks had been made in the report. I have read three such remarks from 10 or so tightly packed pages—the allegations of a lack of accurate information, fragmentation of ownership and a lack of co-ordination between departments. Those are wide-ranging criticisms. But apparently it is up to the local auditor whether anything comes of the report and in this case he had retired.

At that stage, several of my constituents, who were not exactly thrilled by the level of community charge in my constituency, started writing to me. I shall read two or three extracts. One constituent wrote:

"The public interest report would have had more impact if it had covered the events of the past in more detail and if the public meeting had been more sensitive to the views of the public … the District Auditor's representative has told me that the Council is not a poor performer compared with other local Councils"—

given the contents of the report, I finding that surprising—

"it is not difficult to imagine the contents of the next report."

The criticisms in the report are devastating, and if such performance is thought to be average, I dread to think how reports on other councils read. No wonder that my constituent summarised the position thus:

"Our complaint and concern will have been swept under the carpet to remain part of history. Such is my confidence in the Audit Commission."

Having received a large number of letters on the subject, I took an interest and wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, enclosing two or three of my constituents' letters as examples, which I said were self-explanatory:

"the activities of the direct labour organisation and the scale of the financial losses that they have incurred"—

just one subject of the report—

"are matters which have been considered by the District Auditor. I believe that the District Auditor can act as an Ombudsman"—

I am now not sure that that is so—

"I think it is now time for him to detail what action he is going to take following the publication of the various Reports mentioned in the letter."

I had a useful reply from my hon. Friend.

The House can no doubt imagine that I have been under considerable pressure from a large number of my constituents who had high hopes that an auditor's report would provide something useful—perhaps an indication of what the council had achieved by way of improvements following earlier reports. My hon. Friend the Minister wote to me:

"Although the District Auditor will be concerned about the losses incurred by the Council's DLO and will, no doubt consider whether it would be appropriate to take action under the powers available to him, the Secretary of State has his own … powers to invoke sanctions where a DLO fails to achieve the rate of return prescribed by legislation. The ultimate sanction is to order the closure of the direct labour organisation."

Can my hon. Friend the Minister say how often the Secretary of State has exercised such powers and under what circumstances? I suspect that the answer is rio, in which case the Bill is doubly welcome.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities continued:

"My Department was already aware that the DLO expected to incur a loss"—

I am surprised about that—

"but from the information in the letter, this loss now seems likely to be far worse than anticipated".

It was. The auditor's report suggested that it would he a £800,000 loss but, within a fortnight of the publication of the report, we knew that the loss was £1·6 million, which took some doing considering that there were only 150 people working for the direct labour organisation. It might have been cheaper to send them on a permanent holiday in the Seychelles—but I shall let that pass.

My hon. Friend's letter said that, when the new report arrived, the Department would

"look at it closely before deciding whether it would be appropriate to initiate formal action with a view to … imposing sanctions as referred to above. In the meantime, I have asked the officials to seek the Council's confirmation of the deficit likely to be reported and that the accounts will be submitted within the statutory timescale."

The statutory time scale is something of a mystery to me, because this matter has now been going on for some years. Auditors' reports have regularly been produced and we have then been told that the report to which I have referred is not a district auditor's report even though it is headed as such. I am not sure what the statutory time scale is, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could say whether he expects any improvement to be made under the Bill and if he could provide some detail.

That was not the end of the saga. Finally, I received a further letter from the Audit Commission. I must say that by then the activities of the Audit Commission and its assurances that its principal interest was that its reports should be of benefit to the public at large, were wearing a little thin.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I suspect that they were wearing thin with my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford too.

Not at all. I am merely concerned that my hon. Friend started his penultimate sentence with the word "finally". I am following his remarks with interest, as are other hon. Members. Has my hon. Friend noticed the sad—indeed, appalling—absence of the Liberal Democrats throughout our debate? Perhaps that shows the extent of their interest in local government matters.

It is no wonder that the Liberal Democrats are called the "salads". The green Benches are there but there is nobody to sit on them. I certainly hope that Opposition Members—particularly the official Opposition——

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way in a moment.

On this point.

I shall not be leaving the point for a moment. I had hoped that Opposition Members would contribute to the debate, because so many of the councils concerned are Labour controlled. It is crucial that the Bill goes through because of what has happened in Lambeth, Liverpool and Derbyshire, where charges of £500 or £600 or more have been suggested. One might have thought that the Opposition Benches would be packed with Members wanting to speak in this important debate. But perhaps we shall learn a little more, as I imagine the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is about to explain where his 260 hon. Friends are.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to place on record the fact that only he and the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) are present on the Conservative Back Benches. I hope that Hansard will record the fact that the debate has been attended by only two Conservative Members on a voluntary basis—excluding, of course, the conscripts on the Government Front Bench, who are here to do their duty. Far be it from me to apologise for the absence of the Liberal Democrats, although, having listened for the best part of half an hour to probably the most boring and tedious speech that I have ever had the misfortune to hear, I suggest that the absent Liberal Democrats probably have the better side of the bargain.

I do not claim to be a great orator, but for the hon. Gentleman to say that he has never heard a worse speech is a severe indictment of his attendance record.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is apparently unable to see, because there are another three of our hon. Friends on the Back Benches? The hon. Gentleman is also unable to count because my hon. Friend has been speaking for only 12 interesting minutes.

rose——

The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again. If what I have said is to be further dissected, I look forward with interest to my own speech.

It is better to become involved in the debate than just to it and listen to it. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has just entered the Chamber, therefore creating a temporary record of three Conservative Back Benchers. If I got the time of the hon. Gentleman's speech wrong and he has been speaking for only 12 minutes that is a further indictment because, he seems to have been speaking for half an hour. If my attendance record has been less than perfect and this is not the worst speech that I have heard, the experience has certainly not encouraged me to spend more time in the Chamber than I have to.

If that is a promise, it tempts me to carry on much longer, because I have a great deal of information to give the House.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) rightly said that I had just entered the Chamber. I do not know whether he was here earlier when we listened with great interest to the speeches by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and by the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I am not here entirely by choice but because of the even more important Bill which follows this one, which I have the honour to sponsor.

I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) will not be further diverted.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you think that I may be diverted even though the hon. Member for Caerphilly does not.

Some of my hon. Friends who have been here for long periods during the morning have understandably had to return to their constituencies. The hon. Member for Caerphilly must accept that this debate merely continues the trend of the local government debates that we had earlier in the week, when Opposition Members were keen to talk about the Government's attitude to local government but told us nothing about the record or the proposals of the Labour party.

I said earlier that I had received a letter from the Audit Commission following my complaint that nobody seemed to know what effect the commission's report was having in my constituency. The commission's reply stated:

"The District Auditor wrote to both constituents … explaining that he intended to issue a further public report in the new year following completion of the 1989–90 audit. The report will record the Council's progress or otherwise on each of the issues raised in his May report.

The District Auditor considers that to issue yet another report now would be premature and would only add to community charge payers' costs to no good purpose. Having publicised major shortcomings in the Council's management processes he feels he has to give members and officers a reasonable time to address those problems before commenting again.

In circumstances where an auditor is critical of management processes, his only remedy is publicity"

—until now—

"The level of publicity attracted by the District Auditor's report and actions there has far exceeded the norm for this type of local authority."

I agree that the local council obtained a great deal of publicity. I am concerned to know what action the district auditor can take to see that his recommendations—in this case basic recommendations—are carried out. Is the threat of publicity sufficient?

The hon. Member for Caerphilly is obviously interested in local government matters and is probably still proud of the record of Liverpool council. That in itself will attract publicity in the next few months. Another example is Lambeth.

My hon. Friend will also be interested in the activities of Derbyshire county council, a loony left authority if ever there was one. He will note that the two Ministers in the House are from Derbyshire constituencies and that they are listening with interest to his speech.

If I had the wisdom and the knowledge to speak on behalf of my two ministerial colleagues, I would have a tale to tell. I understand that Derbyshire has as bad a record as any council in the country. It is saying something to put that council in the same loony league as Lambeth and Liverpool. The community charge there is £500 to £600 and it bears a heavy responsibility for imposing on both rich and poor people bills which many of them have a job to pay.

The hon. Gentleman has invited me to join in the debate. I should warn him that, for 15 years before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a member of a local authority. For the last three of those years, I was the chairman of the finance committee of that authority, and for each of those three years it was the only local authority in Wales that had a clear report from the district auditor. I am happy to discuss that record with the hon. Gentleman if he wants to go down that road.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows what can and should be done. Many of his colleagues in Derbyshire, Lambeth and Liverpool say that they are forced by cuts and so on to reduce services. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has placed on record the fact that he was a finance officer, and his view that a satisfactory level of services could be achieved if other Opposition Members were as bright as he.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that my local authority is Welsh. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ponder that and offer an explanation of why the only Conservative-controlled authority in Wales, the Vale of Glamorgan authority, has the highest rate of increase in Wales in its forecast for this year's poll tax.

Order. The hon. Member for Stroud may find it somewhat difficult to respond directly to that intervention and to remain in order.

You have saved me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from travelling down a cul-de-sac that I should not take. I could provide all the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks, because I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Welsh local government. However, it would be impossible to do that and to stay in order.

It is a curious fact that Welsh local authorities seem to have a good record. Many of them are Labour controlled and have better records than most of their English counterparts. Perhaps my hon. Friend could use his encyclopaedic knowledge to expand on that.

rose——

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he is being tempted from the straight and narrow. When there were no interventions, he remained in order.

I wonder whether a lower level of charges in Wales means that there is less likelihood of Welsh councils being affected by the Bill. The average community charge bill in Wales is considerably lower than in England.

I was recently invited to speak to some people in Monmouth, which some people say is part of Wales. The agent told me to speak on any subject except the community charge, because the charge is not an issue in Wales. That shows that the principle of most people paying something towards the cost of local government is sound, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said yesterday. However, the level of the charge is where the problem arises, but it is not a problem in Wales even in areas where there are Labour authorities. Labour authorities in England spend too much and obtain the nickname "loony" authorities. We shall continue to address them in that way.

I am pleased to know that, when the hon. Member for Caerphilly was a finance officer, he was well able to manage within the rules and restrictions which apply to local government and that he has not found the Government's record lacking during the past decade.

I was asking my hon. Friend the Member for Wan stead and Woodford whether the threat of publicity was sufficient and whether it would make any difference to Labour councillors such as those who inhabit and infest councils in Lambeth, Liverpool and Derbyshire. Those councillors have very thick skins. I know of one council in my constituency that sits until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning discussing the import of South African oranges or whether to name a local park Nelson Mandela park. I often wonder about the cost per hour of running a council and paying all the officers until 1 o'clock in the morning: money is going out of the window at the same time as the hot air.

What is the point of having district auditors reports if the Audit Commission says that they are not auditors' reports and no action is taken even when the report is damning? I look forward to the Minister's reply to these points.

With the leave of the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to answer some of the important points raised by my hon. Friends. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, because we have been here a long time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) asked why Scotland appears to be many years ahead of us. As someone whose first job was a teacher in Scotland and who is still a Scottish registered teacher, I can say that Scotland is ahead of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, on many matters—for example on education and the community charge.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) almost suggested, the Bill arises from the Widdicombe report. He instructed us on what the Widdicombe report said on this issue, so I shall not burden the House by repeating it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford asked whether the auditors could report on the collection of rents. The auditors can report on an authority's failure to collect the income due to it. In the past six years, the auditors have issued more than 30 reports on that subject. There would be no question of the auditor applying to the courts on such a matter to seek a declaration of unlawfulness. Such applications to the court are made only when there is clear illegality and a breach of the statutory duties given to councils, and that would not apply in the case of increasing arrears. Auditors can and do criticise the poor value for money given by authorities, but the action would not be ultra vires.

Does the Minister expect the heavy expenditure that will be wasted this week and next week because poll tax bills will have to be ripped up and thrown away to be ultra vires? If local authorities next week have to throw substantial sums of money down the drain because poll tax bills have already been printed and bundled up but will have to be thrown away, would that be a proper subject for a district auditor's report?

Will the hon. Gentleman also undertake to look closely at the situation in Westminster council, which faces the prospect of incurring expenditure of £42 on each poll tax bill, for a return of £36? Is that an example of good local authority practice or an example of a situation that should be examined by the district auditor?

Westminster council has alleged that it will cost more than £40 to collect the community charge. I find that difficult to understand, given that the average figure for the whole country is £15 per bill. I look forward to hearing in more detail what Westminster council has to say.

I do not consider that the proposals in the Bill that I introduced yesterday require an auditor's report. The changes that it introduces are not the responsibility of, or the result of neglect by, the local authorities. The matter will be decided by the House after due consideration. The House is the proper forum for making such decisions, at the Government's suggestion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford asked whether auditors could intervene if councils failed in their responsibility to do something, as opposed to intervening when councils do not do something. The answer is yes. For example, in 1985 the councils of Liverpool and Lambeth failed to set a rate for the following financial year. The district auditors for those two authorities intervened, with the result that 42 councillors in Liverpool and 32 councillors in Lambeth were surcharged by the auditor and disqualified from public office for five years.

The Bill places on the authority the duty to report, because it is the authority's conduct that is the subject of criticism by the auditor. It is the council's duty to manage the authority; that is why the members were elected democratically by local people. It is not for the auditor to usurp the role of elected members. However, auditors have a fallback power, and can make reports available should they so wish.

My hon. Friend was concerned that an auditor may wish his report to be published but certain councillors may not. Clause 2(5) says:

"An auditor who has sent an immediate report to a body or to the chairman of a parish meeting under section 18(3) above—

(a) may notify any person he thinks fit of the fact that he has made such a report, and

(b) may supply a copy of the report, or of any part of it, to any person he thinks fit."

That may answer my hon. Friend's question. The Bill provides that the auditor's report must be sent to all councillors of all political parties. Given the different political complexions of our councils, I would expect that that would ensure the publication of any such report.

My hon. Friend suggested that there was no opportunity for reports to praise local authorities. I am glad to say that this is not so. The Audit Commission publishes a range of reports which are always careful to name authorities that have performed particularly well. I happen to have with me an Audit Commission report called "The Road to Wigan Pier", on the planning of local authority museums and art galleries. Paragraph 18 states:

"The Wigan Pier Heritage Centre, the funding for which was provided by a variety of public and private sources, including the European Community social fund, central Government and the English Tourist Board, is a major tourist attraction, with half a million visitors in its first year of operation; its success has attracted investment to the area and contributed to Wigan's economic regeneration."

So the Audit Commission certainly has a role in praising local authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was worried about a failure to act on a report. I shall write to him in more detail about the case he mentioned. The Audit Commission's letter was, as he would expect, perfectly correct in its reply about the role of the auditor. The retirement of the auditor did not remove the obligation of the council to act on his recommendations; inevitably, auditors have to retire or take over from each other from time to time. In such cases, the outgoing auditor ensures that the incoming one is fully briefed on the salient points of the audit. Those points will then be properly considered and acted upon in the course of future audit work. I shall in any case undertake to write to my hon. Friend about the worries that he has raised on behalf of his constituents.

I should like to end on a more positive note. Although the Audit Commission's duty is to ensure good value for money for local and national taxpayers and the highest quality of services that we would all expect of local authorities, it would not be right to end this important debate on a sour note. One of the major objectives of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in conducting his review was to encourage best practice in local government. We have been highly conscious over the past few years that in the eyes of many people the status and standing of local government have declined.

As hon. Members on both sides will recognise, it has become more and more difficult to persuade good people to stand for local councils. If we believe in a proper constitutional arrangement between central and local government, which must depend on the quality of local government, it is important that the House ensures that the functions, structure and finance of local government be put right, in the interests of the nation. That is the objective of the Government's new policy, and the importance of the Audit Commission in this should not be underestimated. I reiterate that it has a positive as well as a negative role; it should criticise when necessary, and praise when that is proper. That should also be the role of the House and of this Bill.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am delighted that this important Bill, which I have the honour to promote, has got so far through its proceedings as to have reached Third Reading by the middle of March. I hope that the House will agree to Third Reading today so that the Bill will proceed to another place, where I hope that it will have as easy a passage.

I am grateful to all who have supported the Bill, sponsors and others alike, and to those who were kind enough to attend the Committee stage and to give me their wholehearted support throughout proceedings on the Bill. I am delighted to see one of the Bill's sponsors here this morning—the Opposition Chief Whip——

Deputy Chief Whip.

Ah. My mind had jumped ahead to what will inevitably happen in the fullness of time. The hon. Gentleman has all the talent and judgment to ensure that one day he follows in the distinguished footsteps of another north-east Member who currently holds the post. In any event, I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support; I know that it is difficult for Members in the Whips' Office to associate themselves with a particular Bill, so I am doubly grateful for his support.

I came 16th in the ballot for private Members' Bills. That meant that I had to think quite hard about what kind of Bill I proposed to introduce. When one comes 16th, one cannot hope to have the first slot on one of the Fridays set aside for private Members' Bills. Inevitably one will have the third slot. Therefore, there is little opportunity of a long debate on the Bill, particularly if one chooses a contentious issue. I concluded that it would be far better to try to present a Bill that was modest but helpful, was above all uncontentious and was one which the House could readily accept for the general good.

Only once before have I been in the position of moving the Third Reading of a private Members' Bill. In the late 1960s, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were mere boys in the House, I came 18th in the ballot. I decided then that I would raise a non-contentious issue that would help the general public. Therefore, I decided to help parish councils, of which there are dozens in my constituency. I have always hesitated to give the title of that Bill—the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It became an Act and it did useful and helpful things for parish councils. I devised that Bill with the help of the parish councils association.

Having come 16th this Session, I thought that I could do nothing more helpful than preserve and encourage the use and sale of efficient safety equipment for children in motor cars. Many people believe that it is completely safe for children to travel on the back seat of a car or on an adult's lap. However, unrestrained children can be thrown through the windscreen or on to the dashboard in an accident even at speeds as low as 25 mph. The staggering statistics are that 60 children are killed and more than 900 are seriously injured in such accidents each year. Restraints have reduced the risk of injury by two thirds. It is obviously a worthwhile aim to strengthen the measures that have already been taken to ensure that fewer children are killed and injured in car accidents.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some parents hold their children on their laps when sitting in the rear seats in cars, not simply because they may not have a child car seat suitable for that child, but because they might find it inconvenient to fit such a car seat which they may already possess, but which is somewhere else? Does he agree that the practice adopted by Volvo of building a child car seat into the car should be adopted more widely by other car manufacturers?

I did not know that Volvo fitted such seats, but we often find that the Swedes are innovators in these areas. My hon. Friend has described a most worthwhile development and I hope that his comments will be noted by other motor manufacturers.

A little earlier I referred to the easy progress that the Bill has received through Parliament. That shows that it is not a party-political matter and no one has attempted, quite rightly, to use it in that way. The provisions that I propose are aimed at improving further the safety of child passengers in motor vehicles. Children are perhaps the most vulnerable of all car occupants. They are more easily thrown about and seriously injured when they have the misfortune to be involved in an accident.

In general, the Bill enables the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations to control the sale and hire of safety equipment for children so that only equipment that conforms with British or international safety standards can be used to protect children in the event of an accident. Also, retailers will have to ensure that appropriate information about the installation and use of such equipment is provided with the equipment at the point of sale. That is important. We want to ensure that when a car owner purchases equipment he is told how properly to fit it into the car. There is no point in hazarding life or injury by such equipment being wrongly fitted. The equipment that would be designated by regulations under the Bill is intended directly or indirectly to restrain a child in the event of an accident.

The problem is that the present regulations control the sale only of child restraints that are considered to be vehicle parts. That deals with the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) raised in relation to direct restraints that are directly attached to vehicles. One difficulty is that equipment such as booster cushions and carrycots which comply with the standards do not fall into that category. Although the use of such equipment could be regulated by statutory instruments, all ordinary cushions—that is, cushions that are not specifically made to avoid injury to children in accidents—and carrycots would be banned from vehicles. It would be unacceptable to ban ordinary cushions and carrycots. One could not justify such an action on safety grounds. That is why it is necessary to have this amending Bill. The Bill will make it possible to control the sale of all types of child safety equipment designed to protect children in motor vehicles.

After the Bill was considered in Committee the only argument was whether we had taken 50 or 20 seconds. The Chairman, an hon. Member from north Wales whose constituency I cannot immediately remember—it is a Welsh name that I cannot pronounce—managed to conclude our business so quickly that I was not able to explain in detail just what the Bill would do. It would be helpful if I mentioned some of the matters that I would have explained on that occasion.

Clause 1 provides that it should be a criminal offence for a person to sell or to offer for sale certain types of equipment that are conducive to child safety unless that equipment satisfies the requirements prescribed by the regulations. The clause introduces a new section 15A to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which will be similar to the existing provisions that control the sale of motor cycle helmets. Lest anyone should accuse me of not declaring my interests, I must point out that I currently have the honour of being the president of the Auto-Cycle Union, which is this country's governing body for all motor cycle sport. It is naturally concerned about safety and has established strong regulations covering helmets and other safety equipment for motor cycle sport.

The types of equipment that would be designated by the regulations provided for in clause 1 would be those which, in some way, directly or indirectly, are intended to restrain a child in the event of an accident. Such equipment would include the types of child seat belts or booster cushions that are restrained solely by adult seat belts, as well as those that have their own straps for attachment to the vehicle. I am sure that the House knows that it is possible to use adult safety straps for certain types of child safety equipment. In certain circumstances, that can be an effective way of restraining children, especially young children.

The regulations would allow the sale of all types of child safety equipment, but only if they are approved to the relevant British standard as well as to the United Nations ECE regulation 44, or to the equivalent European Community directive. I understand that the Commission in Brussels is currently working on such a directive and I very much hope that it will soon emerge and be adopted.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 does not contain any powers for controlling the sale of all child safety equipment, hence the need for my Bill. Section 41 of that Act enables the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations generally covering the use of motor vehicles and trailers on roads, their construction, and the equipment and conditions under which they may be used. Section 42 makes it an offence for a person to use on a road a motor vehicle or trailer that does not comply with the regulations, or who causes or permits a vehicle to be so used. Section 76(3) makes it an offence for a person to supply a motor vehicle part that, if fitted to a vehicle that is in use on the roads, would lead to a breach of the construction and use requirements.

Those provisions are, therefore, of no assistance in controlling the sale of booster cushions and other types of child restraint that could not be described as "vehicle parts".

Under another statutory instrument, if the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 were amended to make it an offence to use a vehicle on a road if a child was sitting on any cushion other than one which complied with the British safety regulations, it would become illegal to use a car in which a child was sitting, for example, on a normal household cushion. I believe, and it is the view of the Government, that that would be unacceptable to the general public. I am advised by the Department that it could not be justified on safety grounds.

The present construction and use regulations require in section 47(8) that seat belts be marketed with a British standard mark or designated approved mark. The British standard mark is defined in paragraph 8 and includes, for example, a mark specified in BSAU 185 which is the appropriate British standard on booster cushions. That led both the trade and the Department to believe that all child restraint equipment, including booster cushions and carrycots, had to comply with the regulations. However, it became apparent to the Department's legal advisers that the provisions were defective for equipment that is not permanently attached to the vehicle and consequently cannot be described as part of the vehicle. That defect has not been corrected so far because it may, understandably, cause alarm in the trade which has spent a great deal of money on bringing its equipment up to the specification of British or European standards.

To correct the defect could also be seen by the public as a climbdown by Parliament on child safety. However, I am pleased to say that if the Bill receives its Third Reading today and passes on to the statute book, it will be possible to make regulations that will effectively remedy the position. That is the principal reason why the Bill has had such a universal welcome and why it is so appropriate.

The Bill will also ensure that consumers are provided with appropriate information at the point of sale about the suitability of equipment for specific weights of children and, in certain cases, the vehicle models for which the restraint is designed. Current standards require that full instructions on fitting and use be provided with the restraints and it is intended to reflect that in the regulations which the Government will undoubtedly readily bring to the House once the Bill is on the statute book. In that way, the regulations will make it an offence to provide inadequate or incorrect information at the point of sale. That will help to ensure that child restraints are correctly installed, so enhancing child safety.

It is implicit in my right hon. Friend's important Bill that there are two distinct types of restraining equipment and cushions. Would it be an offence for people to use improper equipment as well as to sell improper equipment, which will be an offence under his Bill?

I can sum that up best—my hon. Friend the Minister will endorse my understanding of the Bill, if he agrees—by saying that the Bill will not make it an offence, for example, to sit a child on a household cushion. A small child protected by a normal adult safety belt can easily slip underneath and have an unpleasant accident. If a child sits on a cushion, it increases the safety factor, even though the cushion may not be specially designated as suitable under the Bill. It is a classic case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

On several occasions during his remarks my right hon. Friend has said that this is a question of restricting the sale of equipment. Will he confirm for the benefit of those who happen to read his speech in Hansard that it will not be possible to evade the Bill's requirements by hiring equipment? Will he confirm that the Bill applies to hiring as well as to selling?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill, which he will understand as well as I do, explains the Bill clearly in layman's language, and certainly I am a layman in these matters. The final sentence about clause 1 states:

"Provision is made for equipment let on hire and equipment offered for sale or hire."

Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is well and truly covered by the Bill.

Clause 2 allows for a person who is accused of an offence under the Bill to mount a defence on the basis that the infringement was due to the act or default of another person, where another person has given a written warranty. Consequently, it provides for another person to be accused of an offence. I gather that the provision already exists in the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of similar offences of selling equipment that is not of a prescribed type.

The House will understand that clause 1 provides for the Secretary of State to require that appropriate information is given with the prescribed equipment at the time of sale, particularly with regard to fitting that equipment. The Bill allows for the possibility that manufacturers or wholesalers may have supplied retailers with inappropriate or incorrect information. Therefore, it allows retailers to mount a defence if they can prove that they have been supplied with incorrect information, had a warranty to the effect that it was correct and had no reason to believe that it was incorrect. In certain cases they would also need to show that the equipment and the information with it had remained unchanged while in their possession. Clause 2 further provides that a person who gives a false warranty to the original accused may be accused of an offence. That explains the largest part of the Bill.

Clause 3 sets out the offence and the penalty provided by the Bill and any attendant regulations. The level of fine is in line with that for similar offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 of selling equipment which is not of a prescribed type. We are amending the 1988 Act to provide for the new offences that are created by my Bill.

The level 3 fine on the standard scale is currently £400 and the Criminal Justice Bill contains provisions to update the level to £1,000.

Clause 4 contains the short title and states, as does the Road Traffic Act 1988, that the measure shall not apply to Northern Ireland. I hope that I shall not be asked why it should not apply to that part of the United Kingdom because I should have to admit that I did not have the faintest idea.

I was about to ask my right hon. Friend that very question. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reason when he replies to the debate.

A mine of information, deeper and more extensive than I, will no doubt explain the reason in due course. I suppose that the logic is that if the voluminous 1988 Act that we are amending does not apply to Northern Ireland, my new amending piece of legislation should not apply to it.

I hope that I have given a clear explanation of the need for my Bill. It is with pride that I commend it to the House. It is modest, but I hope that in agreeing to it, the House will, in the years to come, save a large number of children from unnecessary death and serious injury.

I support the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on introducing a most important measure. It is amazing to think that we have not legislated before on the important issue with which the Bill deals. I missed the first few minutes of my right hon. Friend's speech, for which I apologise, so I am not sure whether he gave figures to show the true picture of the extent of death and injury caused to youngsters who were not properly restrained in cars.

I was fortunate to get on to the statute book last year a measure dealing with the provision of protective headgear for riders under the age of 14. My Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act is similar in concept to my right hon. Friend's measure, in that it is designed to protect children from danger. The research I did on my measure revealed that a substantial number of accidents involved children riding. Something had to be done about that. and I am sure that similar considerations form the background to my right hon. Friend's Bill.

It is illegal for children under 18 to travel in the front seat of a vehicle.

rose——

Does my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, wish to correct me?

I am not really in a position to correct my hon. Friend, because my sphere is more wills and tax than the criminal law. But I understood that it was illegal for a child to travel in the front of a car without being properly restrained.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me right. I would regard it as the gravest offence for a parent or someone transporting children to allow a child to travel unrestrained in a vehicle.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to seat belts being used to restrain children in cars, but I am thinking of baby seats that are sold to the public. Many of the straps are complex—and ineffective because they can slip. The Bill would do something about that—the seats would have to fit snugly into the car and the straps would have to be comfortable for the children who are restrained. The straps should also be non-slip and be designed so that a child could not slip out or be thrown around while being driven. That is an important consideration for the health and comfort of children.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned booster cushions. It was valuable for the House and for the implementation of what I am sure will soon be an Act that he drew a distinction between booster cusions and house cushions. I am sure that people will never be stopped from doing this, but people often run from their house and push a cushion under a child so that he can sit more comfortably. I am glad that that will not become more difficult under the Bill.

I stress that pram cots, which can be lifted from their perambulator bases and frames, should also be included in the Bill, although perhaps not by name. Carrycots are named in the Bill, and pram tops are the equivalent to carrycots for many parents. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, but I hope that the Bill means that pram tops and carrycots cannnot be placed on the rear seat of a car so that they could slip forwards.

Perhaps that cannot be written into the Bill legally because it would be too complex, but I hope that prams and carrycots could be required to have a non-slip base and that parents could be pressed into putting them on flat surfaces so that they cannot slip. Unfortunately pram tops and carrycots can slide about, which has obvious dangers.

I hope that the Bill will be passed as quickly as possible. It is vital that we safeguard children's safety in all forms of vehicles and the Bill will do just that. I congratulate my right hon. Friend once again and wholeheartedly support the Bill.

First, I am delighted that, fortuitously—because my Licensing Reform Bill is to be discussed later today, I happened to be in London—I saw that this valuable Bill was due for consideration.

I support the Bill wholeheartedly not only because—like the majority of hon. Members—I have an interest in road safety and in reducing the casualties on our roads—particularly child casualties—but because I have a five-year-old son. For the past five years, I have struggled with the complexities of fitting the appropriate child safeguards into the back of our two cars. The after-sales service and guidance that my wife and I have been able to glean from the sellers of those appliances has been poor, to say the least. We have certainly not been provided with specific advice on the type of equipment that is appropriate for various ages and weights of children. The Bill will improve the efficiency of the retailers of such child safety appliances, so that the after-sales service and the guidance that they give parents on such an important topic is dramatically improved.

It is normally part of my political philosphy to liberalise, to deregulate and to ensure that the Government allow citizens to make as many important decisions as possible on various aspects of their lives, but there is no doubt that legislation relating to safety and seat belts is desirable. Since 1973, tens of thousands of lives have been saved and tens of thousands of injuries avoided through the wearing of seat belts.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) who introduced the Bill that requires the wearing of seat belts by children under 14 in the back seats of cars, which came into operation on 1 September 1989. On 28 March 1990, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic issued a press release which said that, even within the six months from September 1989, there was conclusive evidence that no fewer than 200 young people had their lives saved, or had avoided serious injury, as a result of that Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is seeking to extend the scope of that Bill, and I believe that the effects of that will be equally valuable.

I urge the Government to consider further incentives, such as advertising campaigns or possibly grants, to encourage people to fit rear safety belts. In 1990, 43 per cent. of cars still did not possess rear safety belts. The Government should consider ways of encouraging people to fit such safety belts in older cars produced before 1987 so that the Bill can also apply to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked about the statistics on the wearing of safety belts by children in cars. In 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, no fewer than 10,000 child passengers suffered injury or death as a result of car accidents. No fewer than 908 of them suffered serious injuries and 59 were killed. Statistics for the same year also show that, of the 10,000 children who were injured, 4,864 were injured in cars in which there were no seat belts, or, if available, they were not worn by the children. No fewer than 34 children were killed in cars when they were not wearing seat belts or those belts were not available. Those figures represent a serious problem, and one which the Bill will address.

There is no doubt that parents now appreciate the wisdom of various child seat restraints. Between 1988 and 1989, the sales of such restraints rose by 30 per cent. The market for original seat belt fittings—those fitted at the point of manufacture—is worth £35 million a year. The market for fitting safety belts in those cars that started life without them is worth £50 million a year. Of that £85 million, no less than 75 per cent. relates specifically to restraints made for children. The market is valuable, and hence this is a valuable Bill.

As I have said, the after-sales service that manufacturers and retailers gave parents leaves much to be desired. The fact that the Bill requires British and European standards must improve the after-sales service. I applaud that requirement.

In an article in the April-June 1990 edition of Good Motoring magazine entitled "Safety Matters", David Williams, the road safety officer for the Guild of Motorists, said:

"For children under 12 months, a 'suitable restraint' is either a rear facing infant carrier or a carrycot which is held in place in the car by straps. As soon as the baby is strong enough to sit up—normally 6–9 months—an approved child safety seat can also be used. A 'suitable restraint' for children aged from one year to three years is a child safety seat, a child harness, or an adult seat belt used in conjunction with an approved booster cushion. Children above this age, up to 13 years, may wear any rear seat belt which may be fitted, but once again for smaller children it is safer to use the seat belt with a booster cushion to ensure the belt fits correctly across the child's shoulder and hips."

I apologise for that long quotation, but it illustrates the enormous variety of equipment available and the way in which it matches children's weights and ages. When I bought a child car seat five years ago, I was never informed about the variety of equipment but was simply sold a child bucket seat that was meant to be appropriate for children from the age of three months to nine years, which seemed to be an enormous age span. My active young son did not always find it comfortable. Therefore, it sometimes became loose, which could have been fatal in a serious accident. If the Bill brings about a better after-sales and information service for parents, it will do much to reduce child casualties on the roads.

My hon. Friend might wish to comment on that aspect of child bearing. When one takes a baby home from hospital for the first time with no instructions on the packaging, it could be helpful if hospitals informed parents of first-born children about safety restraints. The first occasion on which parents must consider how to bring up a child is often when they take it home from hospital so hospitals could play a role in that respect.

That good advice is particularly apposite in my case. My son, Alexander, was born in the middle of the heaviest snow fall in the west midlands for five years, and my wife and I had to drive him home in conditions that were not generally regarded as ideal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that matter when he replies.

Many safety improvements could be put in train by car manufacturers, such as improving the cushioning on steering wheels, which cause serious chest injuries in crashes. Other improvements could include better side and front impact protection, which often affects children and, even more important for children, better seating. The front seats of many cars have insufficient padding which if a child restraint does not work, can mean potentially serious consequences. Changes should be made on the basis of EC directives and national regulations, given the trade in cars and the increasing movement of foreigners and of British people to and from Europe through the channel tunnel.

The manufacturers have a great role to play in making safety improvements which will complement the aims of the Bill. Volvo, as other hon. Members have mentioned, already makes a significant marketing play of the framework of its cars in selling them on the ground of safety. I wish Volvo well, even though it is not a British manufacturer. I hope that many British manufacturers will follow Volvo's example.

It is incumbent on the Government to urge car manufacturers to incorporate child restraints in the original design of cars. If they do, they should give sufficient instructions to parents on fitting. If Jaguar can provide a tape cleaner that is specific to Jaguar, there is no reason why other manufacturers cannot provide child restraints that are specific to their cars, and all the safer for that.

Magistrates courts should be made aware of the concern of the House and of the nation as a whole about irresponsible drivers who drive too fast or too recklessly, endangering not only their own lives, but those of child passengers. In 1989, there were no fewer than 7,000 prosecutions and convictions for failing to wear a safety belt. There is a strong case for courts to be required to take into account, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, whether there were children in the car at the time and whether there were children who were not wearing safety belts even though they were provided. That would cause irresponsible drivers and irresponsible parents some moments of reflection on the consequences of their irresponsible driving on innocent victims—their own children in their own cars. That would be an important and worthwhile measure. I once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on what I am sure will be a valuable measure when it is undoubtedly enacted.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on choosing so valuable a measure to bring before the House. In 100 years, it may be difficult to see what most of us have achieved in the House. However, it will be easy to see what my right hon. Friend has achieved. If the Bill is enacted, he will have saved the lives of a significant number of children. I can think of no better or greater achievement. I suspect that my right hon. Friend will have many other achievements by which he will be remembered, but he should be especially proud of the Bill.

Experience has shown that the saga of seat belts for children has been useful and valuable. Many people used to say that it was impossible to force children to wear seat belts in the back of cars. In saying that, they were overstating their case. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) introduced legislation on the issue. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle for what he achieved.

The question is not whether one should try to force one's child to wear a seat belt. In the child's mind, the question is whether it is normal to wear a seat belt. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) introduced valuable legislation on headgear for riding. In that case, too, the question was not whether one should force people to wear headgear when they went riding but whether one should encourage them to do so and whether it was normal and acceptable for them to do so. My hon. Friend's Bill was valuable in the same way as the present Bill is valuable. Normality rules children's lives in a way that we as adults may not fully understand. If I drive a car—perhaps on a private field—without wearing a seat belt, I feel uncomfortable; I feel wrong. I know that my four-year-old son also feels wrong if he travels in a car without wearing a seat belt. Far from having to be forced to wear his seat belt, he reminds me to do it up properly. When I have done his seat belt up, he makes me put on my own seat belt when I get into the driving seat—he is a right little Hitler. He now feels that wearing a seat belt )s as natural as my turning the steering wheel; it is something that goes with driving. I welcome the Bill because it will normalise the wearing of seat belts.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer my questions without any difficulty. The Government have set themselves a target of reducing road casualties by about a third by the year 2000. How does Britain's record compare with those of other countries in Europe? I believe that our road casualties are much lower than in many of them. My hon. Friend the Minister looks extremely confident about that.

The Bill will contribute only partially to reducing road casualties. What other steps do the Government propose to take—for example, to improve vehicle design? My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest said that casualties could be reduced significantly through better side impact protection. Perhaps early agreement can be reached in the European Community to introduce new measures as quickly as possible. We could have safer steering wheels, car fronts less dangerous to pedestrians and so on. If other member states opposed such new measures, it could be pointed out to them that our record is a great deal better than any of theirs.

Recently, I visited Israel and I had one of the most terrifying few days that I have had in my life—not because I was afraid of Scud attacks, although it was the middle of January, but because some of the driving on Israeli roads is terrifying. Perhaps the Israelis' driving methods and safety regulations are merely different from ours, but they could well learn a lesson from Britain, as could many of the European Community countries. Safer cars should be introduced as soon as possible, and my right hon. Friend's Bill makes a valuable contribution.

I mentioned Volvo's incorporation of child seats in its vehicles. The name "Volvo" has now been mentioned four times in the debate and that may encourage other car manufacturers, who may realise that some good advertising is to be had from the introduction of good safety measures because the name of the product concerned is repeatedly mentioned in the House. I have no axe to grind. I am not a consultant for Volvo and I do not drive a Volvo. I drive a British car. Nevertheless, Volvo has introduced some significant safety measures and I hope that other manufacturers will follow its example and provide integrated child seats.

It has been suggested that car seats are sometimes not properly fitted by parents. I suspect that I have been guilty of that and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest suggested that he has also been guilty. Perhaps the Minister can offer advice to parents on how to ensure that safety restraints are correctly installed. I can imagine nothing worse than parents going out of their way to ensure that a child is not injured or, worse, killed by strapping the child as they think correctly, only to discover that they had not done it properly and that correct fitting would have resulted in no injury or at least reduced injury.

I understand that the Government intend soon to publish statistical information showing the involvement in road accidents of different car makes and models. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. If such information is available will it take into account the fact that there are more Ford Sierras on the road than there are Lamborghinis? If it fails to take that into account Lamborghinis will be improperly low on a list of cars involved in road casualties and we could find most of the population rushing out to buy them! The survey must take into account the prevalence of certain makes of car.

I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on an important Bill. He told us that the Bill was 16th in the list. It was obviously his experience as a former Chief Whip that enabled him to make progress where ordinary hon. Members would not have stood a chance. That shows the advantage of such experience. It is unusual for a former Chief Whip, whose job is often to ensure that many private Bills do not reach the statute book, to promote such legislation. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the cross-party support that he received from the three major parties in the House. I give credit to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is in his place.

I shall deal with questions about the Bill before speaking about its provisions. My hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) spoke about the effect that their children have on them when driving. I took my son to see his grandma. On our way back we were stopped by the police who wanted to make sure that we were wearing our seat belts. I am glad to say that my son was correctly restrained in the back seat. That spot check had a tremendous effect on him and every time that he is in the car he makes sure that his seat belt is on. If it is not he thinks that he will go to prison. He also makes sure that I wear mine. There is a great deal that we need to get over to our children and if we get it over early enough, they will set an example and make sure that everybody else is restrained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest spoke about the difficulties facing parents when they embark upon the process of fitting seat belts and restraints. He also spoke about the conflicting advice that is available. As I shall explain, the Bill will go a long way towards improving advice to parents and making sure that they fit the correct equipment. As my hon. Friend says, much equipment is available and sometimes information about it is not in the concise form that parents need to enable them to make the right decision. He is right that it is not a question of money. If a person has the wealth to own a car, he has the wealth to provide restraints and ensure that his children are properly strapped in the back and people are safe inside it. That is an important point. Small sums of money are involved compared with the capital outlay on a car. That is why, in answer to my hon. Friend's question, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide Government help towards installing restraints.

My hon. Friend asked about the Government's intention to reduce casualties by one third by the year 2000. There is potential to improve car occupant protection, for example by side impact protection and safer steering wheels. Children in cars, as well as adults, would benefit from that. Car fronts could be designed to make them safer to pedestrians, including child pedestrians. Lighting of vehicles and rider protection for motor cyclists could be improved. It is extraordinary that no motor cycle manufacturer offers leg protection as an option even for those who want to take advantage of it. We have calculated that, when widely introduced into the vehicle fleet, such measures could prevent a quarter of the deaths and serious injuries on the roads in European Community countries. My hon. Friend is right—that is our objective by the year 2000. As more traffic comes on to the roads it will be an even greater challenge. The Government want to meet that challenge, not resile from it.

Leg protecters on motor cycles may have disadvantages as well as advantages. They may make a motor cyclist more dangerous because he feels safter enclosed in a motor cycle and takes more risks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who is a fervent motor cyclist, could no doubt confirm that.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has strong views on this matter. Manufacturers should provide leg protecters so that people have the choice. That is what we are talking about at the initial stage. I am impressed by what I have seen of the work being done to develop leg protecters that do not spoil the appearance of the motor cycle. I have received many letters from constituents on that issue. I shall not tempt my right hon. Friend by expanding on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford asked whether the Government intend to publish statistical information showing road casualties involving different car makes. I confirm that the Government will shortly publish statistics on casualty rates showing the percentage represented by every make and model of car. They will be the first in a series of statistics and I hope they will help to raise motorists' consciousness of the importance of vehicle safety. I accept my hon. Friend's warnings about the Lamborghini factor. I assure him that we shall take account of the weightings and the use of cars so as not to confuse Lamborghinis with Ford Sierras.

I hope that I have answered the main questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked why Northern Ireland is not included in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, this is an amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which does not include Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is an exemption clause for Northern Ireland.

Although it will be difficult, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the Minister will consider what can be done about children travelling in horse-drawn vehicles. At present there are no safety measures to protect them. As the use of these vehicles is, I am glad to say, on the increase once again, it would be to the advantage of children if something were done on this score to prevent some of the accidents that are beginning to occur.

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about that and we may give it further consideration at some stage—but the Bill deals with motor vehicles.

I may have been inattentive for a moment and missed the Minister dealing with this point, but even though it may not be directly related to the Bill or to the Minister's Department, it is important to remember my point about advice from the Lord Chancellor's Department to magistrates on how they should regard dangerous or careless driving of cars with child occupants, whether or not they are restrained. I profoundly believe that irresponsible people who drive carelessly or dangerously with children on board should be more severely punished by the courts, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend passed on that message to the Lord Chancellor's Department.

I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's point is drawn to the attention of the appropriate quarters. Often it is not that parents are uncaring; they simply do not realise the dangers facing their children in the back of cars. I am sometimes horrified to see children standing between mother and father near the windscreen. If those cars had to brake suddenly, the consequences would be devastating. We must do as much as we can to put this message across, because the consequences of failure to understand it, as we know from the newspapers, are frequently tragic.

Despite the recent reduction in car passenger casualties due to the rapidly increasing use of seat belts in the rear as well as the front of cars, children remain especially vulnerable. More than 10,000 child passengers are injured each year; in the case of children under five, deaths and injuries inside cars represent as much as half of all deaths and injuries for the age group in all types of road accident.

The Government fully support the provisions of the Bill and believe that it will make an important contribution to improving the quality and use of child restraints. It will also ensure that the restraints that are sold are approved to well recognised and accepted safety standards. Provision is also being made requiring correct information on installation and use of the restraints provided. One of the best things that parents and others in charge of children can do to minimise the risk of injury is to ensure that they are sitting properly in proper child restraints for which full instructions on installation and use have been provided.

There has been a considerable improvement in the quality and range of child restraints in the past few years. Anyone who has been a parent of young children in that time will have noticed the improvement in what is available in the shops. Like my hon. Friends, I pay tribute to Volvo. The organisation Kwik Fit Euro Ltd. now fits child safety seats and I have used the organisation on a number of occasions. I am one of those who like to get in a car, turn the key and drive off; I do not understand what happens under the bonnet.

It is good that manufacturers are turning their attention to what can be done. Nevertheless the improvement in availability carries problems of its own. First, it is often hard to be sure what is the best equipment for a child. To minimise the risk of injury, not only should the correct restraint be used for a particular size and weight of child, but some restraints are more suitable for some cars than others. It is vital that that information is made properly available to parents. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest about the great variety of equipment available for children and specifically for different makes of car.

There is considerable evidence that many restraints are not properly installed. For example, if seat belts are too slack to provide proper protection in the event of an accident, that often appears to be the result of inadequate instructions to the parent. Although parents are now generally much more aware of the benefits of child restraints more needs to be done to explain the benefits of child restraints because far too many children are inadequately restrained, if restrained at all, when travelling. Recent measures in the House have helped in that respect and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) for being the motivating force behind recent legislation requiring the wearing of seat belts and restraints by children.

That legislation, introduced in September 1989, required children under the age of 14 to wear selt belts or appropriate child restraints in the rear of cars and taxis. As a result, the number of child restraints in rear seats has doubled. It is estimated that nearly 200 deaths or serious injuries were prevented in the first year that that legislation was in force. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle should take some credit for that.

Those measures represent part of the wider effort to reduce road casualties. As the House knows, we have set ourselves the target of reducing road casualties by one third between the mid-1980s and the year 2000. That is an ambitious target in the face of the increase in road traffic, but we have achieved considerable success. Deaths and serious injuries have continued to decrease despite the increase in road traffic. We must continue our efforts and a significant further improvement can be achieved by a range of improvements in vehicle design. I have already referred to vehicle design improvements; we pay tribute to the manufacturers making those improvements and we press other manufacturers to take similar action. I hope that the statistical information will give manufacturers a greater incentive to consider safety.

However, some of the measures require agreement within the European Community. In the past it has not been easy to secure that, partly, it seems, becasue there is insufficient general understanding of the potential benefits from improved car design. There has also been a rather curious argument that because most accidents are in some sense the responsibility of the driver, all the effort should be devoted to educating drivers into better driving habits rather than into improving car design. That is a rather fatuous argument. Of course, we need to put great efforts into improving driving habits, but improvements in vehicle design still have a vital role in reducing the consequences of driver error when it occurs.

In the past year or two, however, there seems to have been a welcome shift in public attitudes towards car safety. I pay tribute to the efforts of the Lex company in highlighting that issue in what has become a series of annual public attitude surveys. The Government's hope is that this increased public wish for safer roads and vehicles will translate itself into considerably swifter action in the European Community towards improvement in vehicle construction standards. The European Commission is already playing a part in that through its proposals on child restraints. However, there is a need to go further and urgently agree proposals on the other aspects of vehicle design that I have highlighted.

With the increased public awareness of the need for vehicle safety and the growing use of safety equipment for restraining children, the Bill has been introduced at a most appropriate time. It will build on the road safety improvements contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and provide a further measure for limiting casualties. The death or injury of a child in a road accident is tragic. It is our responsibility to do all that we can to prevent such tragedies. The Government are convinced that this welcome Bill will do just that.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is with great pleasure that I move the motion, as I am a member of the Scottish Crofters Union and was born and brought up on a croft. I took up this issue before I came to the House, in the context of the campaign being fought by the Scottish Crofters Union, and I have raised the issue on frequent occasions in the House, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will know, as he served with me on the Committee that considered the Farmland and Rural Development Bill in which this topic was raised.

Over the years the Government have moved from giving support in principle to giving support in practice. I acknowledge the Government's help and assistance. I acknowledge also the help and assistance of officials in the Scottish Office in the drafting and preparation of the Bill. Thanks are due also to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who placed the Bill before the House in the last Session, thereby giving the public a chance to consider their comments before it was again moved in this Session.

Great thanks are due to the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Crofters Commission, which worked together in a co-operative and constructive spirit to put flesh on the bones of the original ideas that were presented some years ago. Thanks are due to various environmental organisations that have given advice during the preparation of the Bill and during its progress through the House. In particular, I refer to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Thanks are due also to several local authorities, including the Western Isles islands council and Highland regional council for their comments and support.

The Bill complements two defined trends in forestry policy over the past decade. The first trend is the increasing emphasis on private planting. Over the past decade the Forestry Commission's estate agency has been responsible for only one third of new forest planting. The Bill, in giving forestry powers to crofting townships, would be in keeping with that trend. Obviously, that trend commends itself to the Government, but, in so far as my Bill would also introduce a new sector of private planting by local townships, it also commends itself to this side of the House.

We should not forget that in socialist Sweden and socialist Finland, 50 per cent. of woodland—that is, woodland outside the control of large companies—is privately controlled. Those countries have a developed system of farm forestry. Much of the continent has a developed system of local farm forestry. We lack such a system. I hope that the Bill will begin to introduce such a system on a considerable scale in the highlands of Scotland. Also, on the increasing trend to private planting, my Bill would give the Government a new option in privatising or selling off various assets currently held by the Forestry Commission.

As the Minister knows, for several years the Government have engaged in considerable sales of Forestry Commission land and wood plots. The enactment of my Bill would give the Government new and alternative purchasers or private owners of Forestry Commission estates which would be an alternative to the usual recourse to speculators or large companies that are not based in the highlands and islands where most of the sales take place. As the Government seem determined to continue that trend, I hope that they will seriously consider the practicalities of allowing portions of the forestry estates to be given to crofting townships so that control can be retained in the local communities.

The second trend of forestry in the 1980s which I believe that my Bill complements is the desire, which has not yet become practice, to shift away from an alien monoculture, in the hills which has the sole aim, of maximising the timber yield for some notional strategic reason, such as the national economy needing to make up the deficit in timer imports. I hope that we shall move away from that monoculture, which serves a single aim, towards a more flexible, multi-purpose vision of forestry, which will chase after other goals, such as amenity, nature conservation and the rehabilitation of degraded and exhausted soils. Equally important, given that public money will be required to maintain a healthy forestry sector, the goals of public access and aesthetics should be at least two of the targets of that multi-purpose approach to forestry.

It might help the House if I quickly summarise the basic objectives of my Bill. It seeks to enable crofting townships to engage in forestry and tree planting and to derive benefits from trees planted on common grazings controlled by the townships. The Bill includes various safeguards which accompany the increased powers for the grazing committee. The first safeguard is contained in what I hope will become subsection (1E), which will provide that the grazings committee cannot exercise its new power

"in such a way that the whole of the common grazing is planted with trees and used as woodlands."

The RSPB has expressed its concern that the acreage of common grazing that is planted in that way should not be such as to impinge on the environmental quality of the grazing. Although subsection (1E) will provide one safeguard, clause 1(2) contains the second safeguard that the approval of the Crofters Commission is required before any planting on common grazing is undertaken. The commission has a duty to safeguard the integrity of crofting in the long term and will consider those factors and, I hope, factors such as environmental quality before approving any approach. I hope that when the Bill is enacted the Crofters Commission, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will co-operate in drawing up an advice pamphlet that the townships can use before embarking on any forestry projects. Such a pamphlet could include advice not only about where to obtain financial support and so on but about the type and scale of forestry to be undertaken. In preparing that pamphlet, the advice of groups interested in the development of responsible and proper forestry, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the new Scottish Natural Heritage, would be taken into account.

A further safeguard in respect of the new power for crofting townships is that the consent of the landlord will be required before the township can proceed. That safeguard was specifically included at the request of the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has been co-operative and constructive in the preparation of the Bill.

Clause 2 largely deals with the technical consequences of giving crofting townships the new power. One such consequence is that the landowner will no longer have the power of resumption of common grazing land while it is being used as woodland. Another is that common grazing woodlands would be excluded from the definition of permanent improvements. Those technical measures are necessary to safeguard against hypothetical, rather than likely, possibilities.

Clause 3 enables crofting townships to have access to the support payments that are available for forestry through the Forestry Act 1979 and the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988 while they are engaged in forestry.

It may be helpful to the House if I give some general statistics on the extent of common grazing in the highlands and islands, to give some notion of the general impact of the Bill. There are almost 18,000 crofts in the highlands and islands. The vast majority of those are in the northern and western isles. Indeed, my constituency has almost half the total number of crofts in the highlands and islands, although it does not necessarily have half the total acreage of crofting land because the average acreage of crofts in the islands and on the Scottish mainland varies dramatically.

Taking the list of members of the Scottish Crofters Union as an indication of the number of active crofters, there are about 5,000 active crofters in the highlands and islands, of whom 95 per cent. have a non-agricultural occupation to complement the income that they obtain from crofting. It should be emphasised that crofting is not subsistence agriculture, but an example of a diversified approach to the rural economy which is becoming more relevant as reforms of the common agricultural policy become urgent.

The average income gained from crofts is about £1,500 per annum. That is usually from holding a small flock of sheep. The average number of sheep per active crofter is about 30. A croft consists of a small area of inbye land and a share in grazing land held in common by several crofters who share a township. The total amount of land held in crofting tenure—both inbye land and common grazing land—in the Highlands and Islands development board area is about 15 to 20 per cent. of the total land area. The typical inbye land area is five to 10 hectares. There is a legal maximum of 20 hectares, of which I was unaware until I researched the Bill. There are 753 separate common grazing areas, covering 573,880 hectares in the highlands and islands. The average size of each individual common grazing is between five and 1,000 acres. The number of shareholders in a common grazing area can vary between 10 and 100.

In evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture during its inquiry into forestry and land use, Dr. Jim Hunter, the director of the Scottish Crofters Union, said that of a common grazing area of 1,000 acres, as many as 400 acres could come under timber in the long term without reducing its stock-carrying capacity. The stock-carrying capacity is low because of the effects of exposure. The planting of the right kind of woodland would not necessarily displace the grazing function because woodland would contribute shelter, so would enhance its stock-carrying capacity. The figure of 400 acres in every 1,000 is a long-term figure dependent on the system of financial support and incentives as it evolved over time. It is my firm belief that the system should be designed to achieve the many purposes of forestry to which I have already alluded.

Some are sceptical about the financial viability of crofter forestry and whether it will be worth while for crofters to engage in forestry. In March 1987 George Campbell, who is the new director of the Scottish Crofters Union, but who was then a student at the North of Scotland college of agriculture, wrote a paper called, "The Feasibility and Viability of Small Scale Afforestation on North West Highland Crofts". The paper was part of his degree course. He showed conclusively that trees offered a higher return than sheep even in the most marginal areas, although not enough of a return to offset the increased managerial input and work required for managing woodland as opposed to looking after sheep.

Two subsequent developments make the forestry proposition even more attractive compared with sheep. The farm woodland scheme, which is already in place, provides a new source of income to farmers engaged in forestry. It was not available when George Campbell made his study. The second development, which I hope will come about, is the passage of this Bill which would make it much easier for crofters to engage in forestry, so making it financially viable.

There are various sources of finance available to crofters if they are enabled to engage in forestry. As well as providing various plantation or planting grants for different kinds of trees, the farm woodland scheme provides an annual payment of £30 per hectare up to a maximum of 40 hectares. I quote the figure for severely disadvantaged areas, which is much less than the annual management figure available for farmers in better areas.

After the passage of the Bill, I shall be pressing for the support given to farmers in less advantaged areas to be increased, perhaps not up to the level of that given to farmers in the best areas—given that the purpose of the farm woodland scheme is to try to attract farmers away from other types of farming activity—to make it more attractive and viable for crofters to engage in forestry.

The Forestry Commission has its own woodland grant scheme. That is another source of funding that crofting townships can access in pursuing their forestry planting. The crofting counties agricultural grants scheme provides a range of financial support for fencing, drainage and general improvements undertaken in crofting areas. That would be available for improvements made in pursuit of forestry aims as much as improvements that are currently undertaken.

There is the possibility of support from the Scottish Natural Heritage Agency. After all, the old Countryside Commission used to pay 85 per cent. of plantation costs for small plantations in national scenic areas, and some of the common grazings would be national scenic areas. That is why the Scottish Natural Agency might have a financial role to play.

A further source of financial support that I would advocate is the introduction of a forestry equivalent of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We could call it the hill forestry compensatory allowance. It would have exactly the same justification as the allowance for livestock, which is the need to maintain populations in rural areas and disadavantaged areas. If forestry is a form of economic activity that can retain rural populations, it is as justifiable to give it additional support as it is to give livestock management additional support.

Indeed, given the way in which agricultural policy seems to be evolving as we move into the next century, there is every reason to begin to promote forestry in disadvantaged areas in the way that in the past we have tried to promote livestock management in disadvantaged areas.

Another source of financial support would be the kick-start, so to speak, that would be gained from implementing my earlier suggestion that any new Forestry Commission wood lots that are privatised should be given to townships rather than speculators. That would obviously enhance the financial viability of crofter forestry.

In addition to strict financial returns, there are many other returns that crofting townships could gain from engaging in forestry. They could get shelter in the way that I described, and that would enhance the quality of the common grazing. The right kind of forestry—I stress that it must be the right kind—would improve the soil and drainage and increase grazing and so on by increasing grass growth. It would maximise the use of machinery because machinery that now lies idle for part of the year could find a dual use in forestry. Wood could over time become available for fencing and firewood.

There might in the long term be downstream activities related to the development of a local timber industry in some of the areas to which I have referred. I would also hope to see jobs arising from the enhanced amenity and environmental quality of common grazing areas.

Finally, I should like to mention my hopes for the future of crofter forestry. Many people come to the highlands imagining that it was always the bleak, treeless wind-swept landscape of today, but historically that is not so. Historically, the highlands were covered by the great Caledonian forest. Sadly, by the end of the 18th century, most of the trees had been destroyed by various encroachments—accessing wood for boat-building and, later, when the industrial revolution was under way, the use of highland trees for charcoal. Often, people are unaware that the industrial revolution had a direct impact on the ecology of the highlands and islands. In fact, various smelting processes were undertaken in various parts of the highlands. The cannonballs shot at Trafalgar were smelted in the highlands, which provided a readily accessible source of charcoal.

The impact on the ecology of the highlands and islands has been such that nowadays in Scotland only 8 per cent. of the existing forest consists of indigenous, native woodland. To take one example, the district of Inverness has lost more than 30 per cent. of its native woodland—its small precious resource—even since the war.

It is sad that the great amount of forestation undertaken in the past decade has not, by and large, replaced or enhanced the native woodland source. On the contrary, between 1971 and 1980 more than 90 per cent. of Scottish planting was of alien conifers—sitka spruce and lodgepole pine. I hope that the passage of the Bill will open up a sector of private forestry which will begin to counteract some of the less attractive trends of the past decade.

An alternative vision of forestry which I should like to see is that now being pursued by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on Isle Martin—one of the Summer Isles—which lies off Ullapool. There has been an extensive programme to regenerate the natural woodland and to plant some indigenous trees such as the downy birch, the common alder and the grey and the gold willows. They are all species that are able to grow reasonably quickly and to cope with the extremes of climate because they are all based on local seeds. They could not only provide amenities of environmental value, but would be of great value for crofting townships should they wish to follow that example.

This is a short Bill, but it could have substantial benefits for the highlands and islands, and not just economic benefits. In the fullness of time, it could have a profound effect on the environment and even on the appearance of the highlands and islands. It could redress some of the destruction wrought by man over the centuries, and one might think of the Bill as a small seed or even a sapling from which substantial consequences may grow.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on introducing this important Bill and I acknowledge, as he did, the help that has been received from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

I hope that the hon. Member for Western Isles does not mind my saying that we all look on him as the respected, authentic voice of the Scottish crofting community. He speaks with the authority of someone who lives in and understands that community. The hon. Gentleman is not motivated by narrow prejudices. What is so refreshing is that he bases his approach on what he believes to be in the best interests of the crofting community and what is viable. That is evident from the Bill and what he said today.

The hon. Gentleman, in common with the rest of us, wants to keep families in those crofting communities. It is not enough for those communities to be peopled by the old because they will eventually disappear with the death of those people. It is important to create an environment in which people can bring up their children and those children can, in turn, look forward to carrying on the traditions and activities of their parents and grandparents.

The hon. Gentleman properly drew attention to the fact that the crofting community, in order to make anything work, must operate within a framework that includes landowners, environmentalists, the Crofters Commission and local authorities. He also drew attention to the constructive approach that those different bodies have taken to the Bill. They have done so because they realise that the Bill is founded on what is practical, possible, realistic and can be delivered. It is important to remember that.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to talk about the increased use of private planting, which has been much encouraged by Government policy. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I represent a large highlands constituency and I agree with him that it would be better for that region if the increasing trend towards private planting helped the local people. The hon. Gentleman and I want the local people to benefit, not someone who lives 100 miles away who has made an investment. I have no objection to such investment, but I want the local people to be more directly involved in private planting.

The Bill provides new options, including the selling of Forestry Commission land. Crofters and farmers are the life-blood of the highland communities and if we are serious about retaining people in the highlands and islands we must consider things that can be done to keep them there. It is a case not just of making their lives economically viable, but of looking after the environment. That calls for a flexible, multi-purpose forestry policy.

There is no doubt that many of the large plantations have not always been a success in terms of their aesthetic contribution to the area and the problems that are caused to rivers and water courses. The local people know better than anyone what is viable. I am frequently astonished that authorities allow planning applications for dwellings in areas that are known to the locals as bogs that always flood. There are many examples of such planning mistakes in the highlands and the same is true of planting.

The hon. Gentleman talked about active crofters, but they will remain so only as long as we adopt a sensitive, sensible approach that enables them to continue their way of life. The management of the region and common grazing are not readily understood by most hon. Members or people who live in cities. They do not realise that crofting communities take a flexible approach to the way in which they handle such matters. Crofters' lifestyles could not continue if they were bound by written regulations. Their sensible, practical way of life has been properly organised and structured through the Crofters Commission and crofters' input at local level and it calls for a degree of flexibility which those who write legislation do not always understand. I hope that the flexible approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Western Isles will be recognised when it comes to planning and grants.

Those of us who understand how the highlands operate realise that the Bill is not intended as a means of milking the Treasury. Crofters have no desire to leave their crofts and go elsewhere, but regard the Bill as an opportunity to develop common grazing. The hon. Member for Western Isles drew attention to the fact that common grazing areas are large and often exposed and that tree plantations would provide protection. For that reason alone, the provision should be implemented. I hope that the approach to the provision of shelter will be flexible. It will improve the area's appearance, amenities and possible downstream activities and, in the short term, will provide the means for fencing.

Clause 1 contains several safeguards. Landlords must consent to common grazing. Speeches in the Chamber are often hostile to landlords, but crofters know that they could not continue their lifestyles were it not for the positive and constructive approach taken by most landlords to the Crofters Commission and the wishes of crofters. Although there are always instances of landlords who do not behave as one would wish, the vast majority take a constructive approach.

Another safeguard is that consent must be in writing. It would be wrong for permission to be given simply verbally as, sadly, words can often be distorted. Furthermore, the part where common grazing will be effective must be specified and I would not argue with that. The landlord or grazing committee must intimate a landlord's consent to the Crofters Commission. Naturally, it will not take effect until it is entered in the Register of Crofts. The matter will then be carried out properly.

Hon. Members do not often have an opportunity to speak on a measure that will help people. Although the Bill does not affect vast numbers of people, it will help those who are the life blood of Scotland. Most people who now live in Scottish cities originate from rural communities—indeed, many eminent Scots come from crofting communities. One example is my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is an eminent Member of the other place. He is one of the few Scots to have achieved high office in the Scottish and English legal professions. That is an achievement.

There are many other examples of people who have come from crofting families. My father managed to trace back our family to a crofting family in the western highlands. I cannot claim to know anything about crofting and it would be fraudulent for me to say otherwise. However, my father found that we came from a crofting background. Like so many other Scots after the 1745 rebellion, for reasons on which I will not touch today, my family moved to the east coast of Scotland. We retain an interest. As a Member who represents a Scottish highland constituency, I recognise that it is only through legislation such as the Bill that we can bring about changes that are viable, with the sensible use of public funds.

I stress that through the sensible use of public funds, we can help people to remain in the glens and on the islands, and to retain a way of life that we want to continue. I am often accused of being mean or monetarist, but I have never taken the view that public funds should not be used for sensible, viable projects. That is why I have no hesitation in saying that providing a means to encourage the introduction of forestry on common grazing, and a more economic and viable return for crofters is a sensible use of taxpayers' funds.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in congratulating the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on bringing the Bill to what I believe will be an unopposed Third Reading, and on his expertise in his speech. As he said, it is personally appropriate that he should introduce the Bill as it is the result of considerable personal work by him for a long time. I welcome and entirely agree with the unequivocal and enthusiastic support that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, who is no mean expert in piloting private Members' Bills on Scottish matters through the House, has given to the Bill for a number of reasons.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee, the Government fully support the Bill. It will enable grazing committees to plant trees on common grazings and to use common grazings as woodland. The hon. Member for Western Isles was right to stress the agreement between crofting and landowning interests. Some time ago, there was a broad consensus that there was a good case for facilitating commercial tree planting on common grazing without the land being taken out of crofting tenure. As the hon. Member for Western Isles has explained, the result of close co-operation between various interests has been to secure a measure that we are all content to view as generally acceptable. I echo the praise of the hon. Member for Western Isles and of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North for those involved, notably the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Crofters Commission and, in the public sector, the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Office.

The hon. Member for Western Isles rightly told the House that the measure has the full support of the many other bodies, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It also has the support of the Western Isles islands council and Highland region.

The hon. Member for Western Isles was probably instrumental in securing the inclusion of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which in its second report for 1989–90, dealing with land use and forestry, recommended that the Government should give a higher priority to developing farm forestry as part of their wider policies for maintaining rural communities. The Committee was right to note that crofting tenants in the highlands of Scotland were a special case and said that it was convinced in principle of the need for legislative change to allow crofting forestry on common grazings. The Committee accordingly recommended that any remaining difficulties should be ironed out and that any necessary changes should be introduced without delay.

There has been consistent and considerable good will towards the Bill on all sides. I join the hon. Member for Western Isles and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North in recalling that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) introduced the Bill last year so that the proposals contained in it might be more widely known. Everyone is delighted that the hon. Member for Western Isles was successful in the ballot and also that he chose this Bill.

Let me emphasise one or two of the key points in the Bill. It is worth stressing that the Bill does not affect existing provisions in crofting legislation, which, if the appropriate conditions are met, would allow resumption by the landlord on one hand and apportionment and decrofting by the crofter for the planting of trees on the other. Accordingly, strictly speaking, the Bill does not make more land available for planting. It makes the same land available in a different way. The Bill provides a practicable alternative that enables trees to be planted on land that remains in crofting tenure. The hon. Member for Western Isles made the valuable suggestion that we might build on the provisions in future and, the Scottish Office and the Forestry Commission will consider that possibility carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to emphasise that, under the new arrangements, both the consent of the landlord and the approval of the Crofters Commission are required before planting can take place. As my hon. Friend emphasised, that provides an adequate safeguard for any landlord who may have reservations about agreeing to tree planting on his land. It also affords a degree of protection to crofters with an interest in a common grazing who have similar reservations. The terms of any agreement on planting are a matter for settlement between the landlord and the crofters undertaking the planting.

The hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has supported the Bill but which has circulated hon. Members regarding one matter of concern to it. I confirm that we understand that in practice the RSPB's concerns can be met under the Bill.

The Bill also provides that a grazings committee will have access to forestry and farm woodlands grants on the same basis as owners and lessees under the respective schemes.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said about the sensible use of public funds for these worthwhile schemes. The Bill's provisions mean that the statutory provisions and rules relating to those schemes will apply when considering applications under the woodland grant scheme. The Forestry Commissioners have a duty to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the development of afforestation and the conservation and enhancement of the natural heritage. The Scottish Office has a similar balancing duty when considering applications under the farm woodland scheme.

The hon. Member for Western Isles spoke of the practical consequences of the Bill. It is extremely difficult to forecast how much of the common grazings might be planted with trees in accordance with the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that about 500,000 hectares are held as common grazings. Much of this will be unsuitable for planting and in many areas crofters will choose not to plant because of the value of the grazings for stock management. The hon. Member for Western Isles authoritatively spelt out the economics of stock management compared with forestry.

We do not expect large-scale afforestation, but it is important to give to crofters the opportunity to plant commercial woodlands on common grazings. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke of the value of crofters. They have a long history of diversification going back to long before the word diversification was invented. I am sure that crofters will seize the opportunity in circumstances where they consider this the appropriate course to follow. I confirm that Government assistance through the relevant grant schemes will be available on the same basis as for other applicants.

The hon. Member for Western Isles suggested that the Bill should be followed by the publication of an advice leaflet which would be issued to crofters after consultation with the parties involved. That is a sensible suggestion and when the Bill reaches the statute book we shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman to see how best that proposal can be implemented.

There is no need to go through the details of the Bill because they have been outlined by the hon. Member for Western Isles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North spoke about the key points of the Bill's four clauses. In relation to the timetable, I can confirm that the Act will be brought into effect by means of a commencement order. It will be necessary to check whether any adjustments to subordinate legislation, such as for the farm woodland scheme, are required and to allow time for any necessary administrative arrangements. However, it is envisaged that there will be no significant delay in bringing the new arrangements into operation.

Scottish Members are not always present in the House on Fridays, for good and understandable reasons. I hope that the House will agree that when Scottish Members introduce private Members' Bills it is extremely worth while. The Bill is a short but important measure which has the wholehearted support of all political parties and all the interests involved. I commend it to the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is the first opportunity that we have had to debate the Bill on the Floor of the House, because the Second Reading went through on the nod. The Committee stage a fortnight ago, lasted 34 minutes. On Report, the Bill was unopposed and unamended and I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.

I move the Third Reading with a sense of sadness. The Bill was originally presented to the House by the late Donald Coleman, who came 18th in the ballot for Bills last autumn. Donald was elected in 1964 to represent the constituency of Neath. He was a senior and well-respected Member of Parliament and tributes have been paid to him. He died on 14 January on his way back to the House after the Christmas recess. I consulted the other sponsors of the Bill and his widow and we all agreed that he would have wanted us to continue with his Bill.

The Bill was conceived by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Donald was interested not least because the Bill offers considerable protection to the red kite, which is the national bird of Wales. If the Bill reaches the statute book, it will be a fitting tribute to Donald Coleman and his love of our native wildlife and countryside.

The Bill amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is the prime legislation protecting wildlife in Britain. It is designed to strengthen that Act by plugging a loophole and allowing the prosecution of those who direct, or allow others to commit, offences of illegally killing wildlife. Sections 5 and 11 of the 1981 Act prohibit certain methods of killing or taking wild birds or other animals. It is an offence for any person to set in position an article of such a nature, and so place it, as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild bird coming into contact with it. That includes a spring trap, gin, snare, hook and line, any electrical device for killing, stunning or frightening or any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substance. It also outlaws other methods, including crossbows, any explosives other than ammunition for firearms, automatic and semi-automatic weapons and so on. Those offences are among the most serious that the Act creates and carry special penalties.

The Bill proposes an amendment sections 5 and 11 of the Act by the insertion of another subsection, which provides for the prosecution of any person who knowingly causes or permits those frequently horrific offences. That is necessary because the Act is clearly failing in several areas in its intention to protect Britain's wildlife. For instance, figures collected by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds show that last year alone protected species of birds of prey were involved in more than 530 incidents of poisoning, shooting, destruction or trapping. Those figures represent only the tip of the iceberg because it is difficult to obtain figures on what actually happens in the countryside. The public have limited access to many of the areas in which offences take place, and much of what is done is unreported.

Consideration of a species that we have an international obligation to protect—the red kite—will illustrate the seriousness of what has been happening and continues to happen. In 1989, 13 poisoned red kites were found in Great Britain. As the bird nests only in central Wales and as there are only 60 breeding pairs, the prospects for the viability of the population are seriously undermined by their unlawful destruction. The Bill will ensure that those who direct or permit others to bring about the destruction of such birds will be held responsible.

I offer the House an example of a case in Scotland in 1989. It would not be right to mention the names of those involved, but following investigation by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, a gamekeeper was prosecuted and convicted for laying poisonous substances that brought about the death of legally protected birds of prey. He informed the court that he had been instructed by his employer to lay the poison. He was in fear of his job and he followed instructions. He was found guilty and convicted of the offence, but in the eyes of the law his employer had committed no offence. This Bill will close that loophole and make employers responsible for the acts of those whom they employ.

This is a straightforward, small, but nevertheless important measure. I record my thanks to the RSPB for the ground work that it has done and for the way in which it has raised public interest in the illegal persecution of birds of prey. I also thank the head of the wildlife investigation department of the RSPB, Andy Jones, who has often put himself in peril in his investigations. Thirdly, I thank the sponsors of the Bill from all parties, most of whom attended to ensure that the Bill had an unimpeded passage in Committee. Finally I thank officials in the Department of the Environment, who were most helpful with drafting the Bill and tabling the necessary technical amendments in Committee. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State who has ensured the Bill's swift and unimpeded progress thus far. It has all-party support and I hope that it will continue to make progress today.

I fully support the Bill, as do the overwhelming majority of our colleagues who are not present today. It is a worthy Bill, but for those of us who knew him well over the years it is sad that Donald Coleman, whose Bill this was, is not here to see its swift passage through the House. He was a much-loved colleague and the passage of this Bill would have been a crowning achievement to a fine and devoted career in the House. As Father of the House, I felt that I should say that on behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members.

I must apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who has asked me to stand in for him today. He has taken a long and abiding interest in the passage of the Bill.

I am sure that I echo the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House in giving the Government's wholesale support to the Bill. It is indeed sad that the late hon. Member for Neath, Mr. Coleman, was not able to see the Bill through all its parliamentary stages and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for picking up the Bill and for his helpful and constructive approach in tabling amendments that will ensure that the Bill harmonises with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and with other legislation.

The Bill would make it an offence for a person to cause or permit another to contravene the 1981 Act's provisions which prohibit the use of certain means of killing or taking wild birds or protected species. While statutory controls in this area are already very strict, the Bill will be a welcome strengthening of the Act in that it will ensure that those persons who manage or oversee land have a responsibility to ensure that they, or their employees, do not use unlawful means to kill wildlife.

We deplore the illegal killing or taking of wild species, particularly if cruel or indiscriminate methods are used. Although the majority of farmers and landowners act responsibly and within the law, there are those who pay little regard to the consequences of using substances or methods that are inhumane and cause unnecessary suffering. Many of our endangered wild species are at risk from the indiscriminate use of poisons or other illegal methods of killing.

As the hon. Member for Caerphilly recognises, there is a case for bringing the Wildlife and Countryside Act into line with equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland and with other legislation which controls, among other things, the sale, storage and use of pesticides. The Bill will do that and will make a very useful addition to the already stringent controls over the illegal killing of protected species, especially birds of prey, and in particular the red kite.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly for his co-operation in tabling amendments to the Bill to reflect the Government's policy on the creation of "causes or permits" offences. It has always been implicit that the successful prosecution of such offences depends on evidence that the accused person had some sort of knowledge of the offence with which he was charged with causing or permitting. It is now normal practice to make that clear on the face of the legislation and it helps to clarify the courts' understanding of the nature of such offences. As amended, the Bill would make it an offence if a person knowingly caused or permitted another to contravene the Act's provisions for the protection of wildlife.

The pressures of modern-day life mean that we have to take particular care of our wildlife if we are to meet our objective of preserving its abundance and diversity. We have one of the best systems in the world in the 1981 Act to ensure that the procedures are in place to give protection where necessary. However good those measures are, they can be undermined by people who are willing to flout the law and ignore the wishes of the great majority of the public in their concern to preserve our natural heritage.

This Bill has identified a chink in our armour which it is right should be closed and it will help us to reinforce the message that we continually try to put across that the Government are determined to take all steps necessary to ensure that our objectives for protection of the national heritage and especially endangered species are met.

Hon. Members will know that the Bill has made speedy progress, thanks largely to the energetic and constructive attitude of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. We are grateful for his co-operation at all stages of the Bill and we share his enthusiasm for amending the legislation to tighten controls to deal with those irresponsible people who persistently flout the law and cause totally unnecessary suffering to our wildlife and the death of species that do no harm. We congratulate him on taking over this very useful measure and give it our full support in its remaining stages.

I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.

In moving this Second Reading, I feel a little like the late great Kenneth Williams in "Just a Minute". He had 10 seconds in which to finish a minute of uninterrupted, non-repetitive and accurate speech in order to receive a bonus point. Given how near we are to the 2.30 pm conclusion to our deliberations today, I can understand how Kenneth Williams felt. I do not expect any bonus points, but I should like to try to persuade hon. Members who may have reservations about the measure—my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) may be one of them—of the importance of the Bill and the necessity for it to be adequately considered in Committee.

Having started its life as a ten-minute Bill last December, the Bill received all-party support—it was carried without dissent—despite the fact that licensing legislation is a particularly sensitive matter. I am as aware as anybody else of the effect of alcohol on crime, occasional disorder in our streets and on more everyday problems for residents in the vicinity of licensed premises. I am aware also of the moralistic and even Quaker overtones that discussion of licensing legislation occasionally evokes, particularly as I come from the originally Quaker city of Birmingham.

As I said in December, the prime purpose, or even the secondary purpose, of the measure is not to relax the licensing legislation. I made it plain that I supported the measures in the Licensing Act 1988, which increased powers for licensing magistrates to revoke a licence when its conditions had plainly been broken, with only 21 days notice instead of going before the next Brewster sessions. I also supported the Government's action because it was taken to make it easier to prosecute under-age drinkers.

As well as having a duty to protect citizens against the excesses of alcohol consumption, we have a duty to our fellow citizens who are applicants for licences, and a duty to consumers. Any fair licensing system should be transparent, objective, not subject to prejudice, open to the extent that reasons for decisions are given to applicants as speedily as possible, and act in a way that is likely to promote competition rather than act against it.

It is an unsatisfactory aspect of present licensing legislation that effectively all power, with the exception of legal appeals which are extremely expensive, is in the hands of an only indirectly elected bench which has total discretion in decisions that are taken. Lord Widgery, when considering the Licensing Act 1964, said that so long as magistrates exercised that total discretion in England—though not in Scotland—honestly, fairly and consistently, they would do so within the law. The present licensing system, which gives total discretion to licensing magistrates, requires reform, as other people have also said. The Birmingham licensing bench, one of the most restrictive in the country according to the Licensing Justices' Clerks Association, said:

"The time has come for Parliament to instigate a detailed study of the licensing laws with a view to wholesale reform."

The Erroll committee was set up by the Government in 1988 to examine licensing reform in this country. In July last year, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department wrote to me saying:

"We do recognise that there is a good case for wholesale reform and updating of the liquor licensing system."

Courage brewers, which may not be thought to have an interest in making the licensing system more competitive, wrote to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1989, asking for reform

"particularly with regard to the removal of the 'need' criterion".

Given that the removal of that "need" criterion is the most important aspect of this Bill, we should bear those comments in mind.

CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale Ltd., has also called for the reform of the licensing system. Perhaps most telling of all, the Consumers Association stated in its evidence to the MMC

"The system of licensing of pubs is antiquated and anti-competitive. It should be reformed so as solely to take regard of the fitness of the applicant and the suitability of the premises."

The association emphasised that the criterion of economic need should not weigh with the licensing magistrates.

Nowhere over the past 10 years has the oppressive use of the potential power of the licensing magistrates been more in evidence than in Birmingham. I use the word "oppressive" advisedly. The Birmingham Post has rightly brought to the attention of the people of Birmingham many of the extraordinary decisions of the Birmingham licensing bench. The editor of The Licensing Review, which is an objective magazine on these matters, has said that there is "a great concern" about certain policies adumbrated by the Birmingham licensing bench.

It is sad to note that since the First Reading of the Bill the Birmingham licensing bench, even under its new chairman—the old chairman was voted off last year—has decided that there will not be any review of its licensing policies despite two meetings, the offer of an objective review by the Francis Graves Partnership, the virtual uproar in the city, and the all-party resolutions of Birmingham city council in favour of such a review.

Too often, the present licensing system is arbitrary, insensitive, restrictive and anti-competitive. It is interesting that Cornfield Associates, an expert in this area, stated in its representations to the MMC that it is because the Birmingham licensing bench has used its "economic need" powers in a restrictive way that Birmingham sees a virtual duopoly—an anti-competitive duopoly—between M & B, Bass, and Ansells, Allied, for the off-licence market.

My Bill has four provisions. The first is patent in any democratic society. It seeks to require licensing benches to give their reasons for the refusal of a licence. Anybody who, at a cost of hundreds or even thousands of pounds, seriously seeks a licence for a business enterprise should, if the licence is refused, at least be given the opportunity of knowing why. That is surely not unreasonable.

Although my hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me stating:

"Many benches are prepared to advise applicants of their reasons for reaching decisions",

the Home Office—or the Lord Chancellor—has no power to require them to do so. Indeed, the clerk of my own licensing Bench in north Worcestershire has said exactly the opposite:

"It is not usual or a requirement that justices should give an explanation or reasons for their decisions."

That is scandalous in a democratic country. I hope that any future reformed licensing system in this country adopts the practice in Scotland where it is mandatory to give reasons for the refusal.

The second reform in my Bill is to set a time limit for the consideration of decisions by licensing magistrates. The third reform is to set a time limit on the period for which a licensing justice may chair the licensing justices committee. One justice in Birmingham held the position for 22 years. Although I do not impugn his integrity, I cannot believe that a system can be truly objective and balanced if the same person rules, virtually as a fiefdom, the same city for licensing purposes for 22 years. People are bound to have a prejudiced or jaundiced view of either the licensing justice or potential applicants. It is unhealthy.

My Bill, as in many other licensing justice jurisdictions——

When I leave the House this afternoon I shall return to my constituency to hold my weekly advice session. I have held an advice session almost every week of the year for the four years during which I have been a Member of Parliament. Every week there is a long queue. Every week I have to deal with the issues that people raise and the issue most raised is housing. I have had four years to see at close hand the misery, unhappiness, suffering and social problems caused by poor housing. I have had four years to see at close hand the misery, unhappiness, suffering and social problems caused by poor housing. I have had four years to come to the conclusion that nothing less is called for than a new initiative on housing in London.

When I say that housing causes misery, I am not talking about people who are mildly irritated because they cannot have a bigger garden or an extra bedroom. I am talking about the people who come to me every week who live in flats that are riddled with damp and where all the outside walls are covered with black mould on the inside. Whatever wallpaper or paint is put on the walls is overcome by the black mould. How many Members of Parliament would wish to live in damp conditions with mould on the walls?

I am talking about constituents who come to see me and burst into tears because they are so depressed by their housing conditions, including overcrowding. It is not by any means unusual for families of six or eight all to live in a two-bedroomed flat. I have to tell them that there is no immediate prospect of their being rehoused. I ask hon. Members to think what it is like for a child in such a household. It is not just that the child does not have his or her own bed or any privacy, but where is the child to do homework? The effects of poor housing and overcrowding on child development and educational standards in my borough are incalculable.

Constituents who come to me are without hope and at the end of their tether because of the housing in which they are forced to live. The tragedy is that I can offer them no hope. We have problems of homelessness. Some constituents live in severely overcrowded conditions with relatives; others live in hostels; and some have nowhere to sleep but the street. I wish that I had some way of conveying to the Minister personally the misery and tragic circumstances of thousands of people in Hackney. If I could do so, he would not reply, as I fear he will do so today, with the Government's normal platitudes on the subject. For four years I have sat through housing debates in the House and the Government undoubtedly either do not understand or choose not to understand the unique problems of inner-city areas. Inner-city housing is a special policy case to which the Government are resolutely blind.

The Government insist that the solutions to housing problems generally must lie increasingly with the private sector. Anybody who lives in Hackney or who has passed an estate agent's window there knows that that is either sheer callousness or sheer ignorance. The average price of a new house in Hackney is £73,500. To buy a house at that price one needs a salary of at least £25,000 a year. Not a fraction of my constituents and certainly not a fraction of council tenants earn that sum. One eighth of council tenants earn more than £13,000 and there are no figures for the number who earn £25,000 and more. I suspect that it is tiny.

The Government refuse to accept that the private sector is not and cannot be a solution to the housing problems of inner-city areas such as Hackney. Neither now nor at any point in the future can the ordinary person living in the inner cities command the price of a private house. I say that even now when there is a slump in the housing market. When house prices climb again, they will be even further out of my constituents' reach. The private sector, which is the Government's panacea for almost everything, will not solve the housing problem in inner-city areas. There is no alternative to proper public sector provision. A Government who insist, contrary to all the facts and information, that somehow my constituents must pick themselves up and buy a private house show inhumanity that beggars description.

In recent years the Government have put considerable emphasis, on the role of housing associations, but they have also put pressure on housing associations to raise rents. There will come a point when housing associations will have to set rents at a level such that they can repay the loans that they have incurred to build properties, but which my constituents cannot afford.

More crucially for my constituents, the Government, through the Housing Corporation, are putting pressure on housing associations to provide value for money, which for the Government means getting units built as cheaply as possible. That sounds reasonable in principle, but it is impossible for housing associations seeking to build in inner London to offer the corporation value for money compared with developers building on the south coast, in the north, in Scotland and in other areas where the price of land is not so high.

The Government then tell the London housing associations, "If you cannot afford to build in inner London, build outside London and take the inner London tenants with you." That sounds all right, but my constituents who have been born and bred in Hackney and whose families and jobs are in the locality do not want to move outside Hackney simply because it is cheaper to build elsewhere.

I often wonder whether Ministers talk to people who work for, for example, London Transport and the hospitals. Despite the recession, there is still a shortage of labour for employers such as British Rail and London Transport. London workers must live near London jobs. The Government's criminal neglect of public housing and the Housing Corporation's insistence on value for money are making it more difficult for housing associations and local authorities that want to build London housing for London workers to get on with the job.

I have tried to explain how ludicrous it is to expect the ordinary folk of inner London to look to the private sector for housing. We in Hackney have a larger proportion of council housing than probably any borough in the country. We have 41,000 tenants, 8,000 people on the waiting list and 3,000 homeless. The Minister and others may wonder what problems council tenants can have in relation to housing. Our estates in Hackney are crumbling around us and the council is not receiving nearly enough money for repair and renewal. We have thousands of pre-1909 houses on which millions of pounds must be spent to repair and convert them into flats for occupation. The council does not have that money and the Government have no itention of providing it.

We have many thousands of pre-war flats. The Minister would not dream of living in them and he would be shocked if his relatives had to live in them. They have substandard room sizes, many are without central heating, there are no lifts, they are without fitted bathrooms, they have poor insulation, there are archaic refuse disposal systems and there are walkways which cause all sorts of public order dangers. We need hundreds of millions of pounds to bring our pre-war estates up to scratch.

I live in my constituency and walk through it every day. One has to see the estates crumbling away to appreciate the scale of the problem. Increasingly, because of the right to buy, the better quality council housing is being sold off and my constituents are being left with a ghetto of housing in which no hon. Member would wish to see any of his relatives forced to live.

In addition to the pre-1909 houses and pre-war estates, we have problems with what, on the face of it, would appear to be more acceptable housing. I refer to the newer system-built housing created in the 1960s and 1970s. The Minister may be aware of the enormous asbestos problems that occur with that type of housing, because asbestos was used for insultion. It will cost millions of pounds to remove that asbestos properly.

That type of property suffers from terrible systemic infestation. I am not sure whether the Minister has children, but how would he feel, on waking in the morning, to find ants and cockroaches crawling over his children in bed? That is the type of problem from which we suffer in many estates in Hackney because the system-built estates have heating ducts that run right through the blocks of flats and become infested with cockroaches and ants. As soon as one flat is fumigated the pests get into another, and even if the entire estate is fumigated they soon return. In this day and age, why should decent families have to go to sleep knowing that cockroaches are crawling over their kitchens and their children?

System-built flats also have problems with window renewal and with roofs. It costs money to make them fit to live in, but the Government resolutely refuse to accept the need for that money. Therefore, even the 41,000 people whom the council is able to house are, by and large, living in housing which is in an increasing state of disrepair and which is crumbling around them. The council does not have the money that it needs to repair that housing.

Those 41,000 people may live in appalling, infested and overcrowded housing, but at least it is housing. What cheer can I give to the people on the waiting list who may have amassed hundreds of points? Last year—as in previous years—Hackney built hardly any new homes. The Government must consider that issue, because the hopes of the people on the waiting list of being housed rests on the council's capacity to build new homes.

I want to make a point that is not party political because all councils would say the same. When will the Government allow councils to spend all the money that they make from council house sales on their capital and revenue programmes? At the moment, councils are allowed to spend only a quarter of the money that they make from such sales. If they were allowed to spend it all, perhaps Hackney might be able to start building houses again.

There are more than 8,000 people on the waiting list in Hackney. I have to say to them that because of our shrinking housing stock, the fact that the council does not have the money to build new property and the fact that we are losing property through the right to buy, the prospect of their being rehoused this side of the churchyard is nil. That is an awful thing to have to say. It makes me feel hopeless and helpless and reduces my constituents to tears. What Government could know that that situation exists, but refuse to do anything about it?

There was some progress in the treatment of the homeless in the inner city. For many years, boroughs such as Hackney had to put the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It was hopelessly expensive and many operators ripped off local authorities and made millions of pounds out of people's misery. The conditions were often appalling—one family with perhaps two or three children had to live in one room. Families were forced to leave their rooms during the day and women with children had to walk the streets because they were not allowed to go back.

There were also problems with fire regulations in bed-and-breakfast hostels. There was at least one fire in a hostel in Bayswater in which people died because the person operating the hostel did not follow the proper fire regulations. The hostels provided accommodation that was overcrowded and squalid and which presented fire risks. Meanwhile, the landlords were making millions of pounds.

Councils such as Hackney have gone some way to taking homeless people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by going in for private sector leasing. The advantage of leasing from private landlords was that the council could offer halfway decent conditions. The scheme should have pleased the Government because it also saved money. However, the Government's response to the council's efforts to devise ways of housing homeless people and to stop ruthless hostel owners from making a fortune was to block the initiative. They tried to remove the subsidy for private sector leasing.

The Government have partially backed down in response to pressure from local authorities and they will allow local authorities to renew the leases. However, they should fully restore the scheme because if one child in Hackney dies in a fire in a ramshackle bed-and-breakfast hostel when he could have been in decent accommodation leased from the private sector, it will be the Government's responsibility.

How dare the Government try to force the homeless back into bed-and-breakfast hostels? I urge them to reconsider the scheme and to return a full subsidy to it. It is much more cost-effective than any bed-and-breakfast accommodation and it guarantees the homeless decent conditions. Whatever the Government might think, the homeless are not criminals and they are just as entitled to decent housing conditions as anyone else.

I have tried to outline the crisis posed by the housing problems in Hackney. I have tried to explain that the private sector is not the answer, no matter how much the Government try to delude themselves. Council tenants in Hackney face problems because of the quality of the housing stock, while those on the waiting list face difficulties because no rebuilding is taking place. I have already outlined the problems faced by the homeless. The Government, however, will turn round and talk about the way in which Hackney manages its housing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and I do not pretend that Hackney's housing management could not be improved. I have just come from a meeting with the director of housing in Hackney where we discussed the problems and the steps that he is taking to try to deal with them. He is the new director of housing and I assure the House that he has the energy and commitment to right some of the wrongs which I found impressive.

I admit that Hackney has the highest number of voids in the country, but, for better or worse, all those voids are not unoccupied. We have more than 4,000 voids, but 1,300 are squats and another 1,000 are occupied by those with short-life tenancies.

Hackney has a problem with rent arrears, but it is attempting to reduce those arrears. This year Hackney has achieved a 95 per cent. collection rate. I accept that that collection does not relate to rent arrears that have accumulated in the past, but the officers and councillors of Hackney are aware of the problem and are in the process of dealing with it.

The problems associated with housing management in Hackney, however, do not excuse the Government's wilful refusal to accept that inner cities have particular housing problems and their insistence on gimmicks rather than on making money available.

I do not want to be party political or argumentative, but let us consider the Government's housing action trust scheme. That was supposed to be the answer to the problems on housing estates that I have described. The HAT scheme collapsed because inner-city council tenants were not interested. The Government could not get a single estate in London that was prepared to get involved in a HAT. Tenants do not want private-sector landlords for the sake of it, they want decent quality housing. The problem does not rest with the council; ultimately it rests with the Government.

A society that can mobilise thousands of millions of pounds to spend on the Gulf war, but cannot mobilise the money to give my people a decent standard of housing, must have something wrong with it. I believe that the Government wilfully refuse to accept the serverity of the housing problems in Hackney and other areas. The Government are callous because they are not making resources available.

It will not do simply to engage in party-political abuse of the local authority. The problems faced by public housing in the inner city are systemic and deep-rooted. Those problems are causing misery to thousands of people every day. They cause more misery to more people in Hackney than almost any other issue. They cause me more thought and worry than almost any other issue. Even if every housing management problem in Hackney was ironed out today that would not detract from the Government's duty to provide the money and accept their responsibilities for housing all their people in decent conditions.

I am here to speak out for my council tenants in Hackney. The Government have done U-turns on many things and I beg them do one in their attitude to public-sector housing. They should launch a new initiative with real money, a real commitment and a real understanding of the problems—the people of Hackney deserve no less.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on securing the debate. I am relieved that it will be a debate, although I have only a few minutes in which to reply.

I hope that the Government will not do a U-turn, as the hon. Lady suggests, because her constituents would be among the first to suffer if the increased investment in housing were stopped. I promise the hon. Lady that I will not offer the platitudes that she fears. I do not wish the debate to be sour, because I recognise that Hackeny is making renewed efforts with its housing policy, which has gone astray in the past few years, as she will admit. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is also present. I assure both hon. Members that my reply will not be a handbagging exercise in any sense.

The Government recognise fully that they have the ultimate responsibility for housing people in this country. To that end, as an inner-cities Minister, since Christmas I have visited the sort of housing estates with which the hon. Lady is familiar, in Dundee, Glasgow, Manchester, Salford, Liverpool, Birmingham, Barnsley, Bristol, Plymouth, Southwark, Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. Given the opportunity, I would not mind visiting Hackney. The Government are determined to tackle housing problems in partnership with local authorities. It sometimes has been difficult to act in partnership with local authorities. I shall refer later to the problems that local government officials working in the housing departments have had for many years.

Hackney has had to deal with homelessness and general housing problems but, at the same time, it has 1,680 empty homes and 1,300 occupied by squatters. It is not easy to reconcile that problem with constituents who bring their homelessness problems to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. I often see such a phenomenon when I travel around the country speaking to housing officers.

The hon. Lady criticised much of the Government's housing policy. We are trying to liberate people from monolithic, unimaginative, inhuman solutions to housing problems. Solutions were often tried and introduced with good intentions, but the problems were often compounded by the appalling results. The hon. Lady will be familiar with the huge, Stalinist concrete people's palaces of housing estates with which this country is littered. The problem of insect infestation is rooted in the design of those estates, and it is tragic that estates which were built with such imagination in the past 20 years or so—in the years since the hon. Lady attended a good school in the leafy suburb not 100 yards from the school at which I taught in Harrow—are now being torn down.

The Minister talks about Stalinist estates. I was in east Berlin last year. If my constituents could live in the estates that I saw there—presumably built under Stalin—they would be grateful and happy.

I have not seen estates in east Berlin, but I have seen them in Moscow and I assure the hon. Lady that, given the choice, I should rather live in Hackney than in Moscow.

In place of the old solutions, we have sought to offer tenants greater choice, more direct involvement in management and a choice of alternative landlords. We have also tried to increase public sector resources and have done so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that gross provision for Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1991–92 would be £1·5 billion, rising to more than £2 billion in 1993–94. That is a 65 per cent. increase over the current year. In the past 11 years we have enabled local authorities to spend approximately £36 billion on housing capital works. In that time, Hackney has been able to spend £475 million on housing. London receives an increasing proportion of that larger programme. The Hackney housing investment programme allocation for 1991–92 is £32·8 million, an increase of 14·8 per cent. on the previous year and the second highest HIP allocation In London.

The purpose of estate action programmes is to improve the quality of life of people on problem estates. We recognise that there are enormous social problems associated with difficult housing estates, but we are trying to bring together action for cities initiatives and estate action initiatives to include management, employment and enterprise initiatives and, above all, the involvement of tenants.

I wish that Hackney would encourage more sales of housing, which would help to generate new funds. I take the hon. Lady's point about 25 per cent. of receipts being able to be used on new housing provision, but Hackney's record on the right to buy is pretty terrible. I am glad that the council is putting up rents, which were unrealistically low for far too long, and low rents have never been a solution to such problems.

In the few minutes remaining, I wish to be positive about the reorganisation of the housing directorate in Hackney. From travelling the country and seeing housing problems, which I acknowledge exist, I have learnt that the staff of housing departments often do not have the necessary training or motivation. They therefore lose their sense of professionalism, recruitment is difficult and retention is poor. I want far better management of housing. The biggest single problem is not the lack of housing, but poor management. I hope that Hackney will address seriously the problems of management, and that it will ensure that staff are properly trained and motivated under the new director, as that will help the hon. Lady's constituents.

We have come a long way in policy and decision-making, and in management. What we now need is the best use of what we have. We must ensure that flats do not stand empty, and that rents are collected so that the money can be spent on services. As the hon. Lady will recognise, the refuse which accumulates in corners on so many estates must be collected. We need to ensure that the management on the estates is sufficiently good that repairs are done quickly. Above all, as I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, Hackney must ensure that tenants are not only chatted to but listened to. The area housing managers on the estates have a real job to do. It should not be a question merely of picking up notes from tenants and passing them back to someone at the town hall. We must improve the housing management system.

It is my duty and privilege to travel the country listening to local authorities and housing departments, and seeing for myself the problems that undoubtedly exist. I hope to find time to visit Hackney in the near future.