To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of jobs in the north-west region of England which are related to defence requirements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the impact upon jobs in the defence industry of his Department's plans for the future.

Historical figures, broken down by region, for the number of jobs related to defence requirements are published in volume 2 of the 1991 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", a copy of which is in the Library.

The future level of employment in the defence industry is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned.

That answer is in line with what we have had before, so it is not unexpected. If we are prepared to participate in a European bank for reconstruction and development to help countries in eastern Europe which are facing the same problems as Britain's defence industry workers, could we not at least set up a defence diversification agency to help the tens of thousands of workers in the north-west and throughout the United Kingdom who will be thrown on to the scrap heap?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is shared by my Department, but I do not think that on reflection he would want the defence industry to be singled out for particular treatment from our other manufacturing industries. We are particularly concerned about the anxiety and deprivation that result when people lose their jobs as a result of the changing international climate. I am in constant touch with defence industry leaders through the National Defence Industries Council and the Defence Manufacturers Association, and my Department participates in the regional seminar staged by the DTI for small and medium-sized defence industries. An agency such as the hon. Gentleman suggests would do little more than we are already doing unless it were funded and empowered to make grants and loans which, as he will realise, is not a practical suggestion, because it would mean singling out a particular sector of British industry.

Opposition Members will obviously be disappointed at the Minister's reply which is characterised by his usual laid-back approach to the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that our competitors in Europe and elsewhere will ensure that whatever happens to future orders their defence industries will be compensated by alternative diversification? Once again, the Government seem not to give a damn what happens to our skills and to the jobs of the future. As always since the Government came into power, we are in the slow lane.

The hon. Gentleman's question is completely misleading. Among our so-called competitors, the United States and west German defence industries are suffering much heavier job losses than we are. The job losses in United Kingdom defence industries as a result of the change of emphasis in British procurement are as nothing compared with those that would be suffered under the Labour party's defence policy—if so dignified a term can be used for something so confused, contradictory and misleading. Such job losses would be horrific and far more widespread.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the importance of British Aerospace as a major employer in the defence industry in the north-west. Will he accept its deep gratitude for the way in which his officials are explaining his Department's needs so as to ensure that the right commercial decisions are made about the markets to go for in future?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about markets. It ill behoves Opposition Members constantly, for ideological reasons, to decry my Department's sponsorship of the sale of arms to friendly countries wishing to defend themselves within the terms of, for example, article 51 of the United Nations charter.

Is not my hon. Friend delighted with the $450 million order—[Interruption.]

Order. This is most unseemly.

that British Aerospace has just won for 20 RJ70s that is especially designed for the United States market and fills a niche that no one else could have filled?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that good example of the special skills and capabilities that the British defence industry still has, and which I do not doubt will serve it well in future in both domestic and export markets.

The Minister has repeatedly said that he does not want to single out the defence industry for special consideration. He surely recollects the precedents set in the steel and coal industries, in which the Community was involved in Europewide initiatives to limit the impact of the decline in demand for the products of the companies concerned. If the Minister is not prepared to shoulder the burden on behalf of the British taxpayer, is the time not right for him to work with the European Community in establishing a Europewide diversification initiative?

I have not heard of such an initiative, but if one were to be promulgated by the Community, we would consider it carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the disposal of land surplus to his Department's requirements.

It is Government policy that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for defence purposes. We continually seek opportunities for rationalisation and the release of land surplus to our requirements. To ensure that the best return is achieved for the taxpayer, it is our normal policy to offer property not needed by the services for sale on the open market.

May I ask my hon. Friend urgently to investigate why his Department declines to release to Basingstoke and Deane borough council land in the village of Bramley that is earmarked for a playing field under our local plan? Is he aware of the concern and indignation that perceived unwarranted delay causes?

Yes, of course. My hon. Friend will know that that is part of a parcel of land of about 45 acres in total. We are in negotiations with the local authority for planning permission, and we hope to obtain it for housing on some of that land. We are also talking to potential purchasers. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I will make sure that my officials are also made aware of it.

Where the Ministry of Defence has occupied land for generations or even for centuries, will my hon. Friend ensure that in disposing of it the Ministry will work as closely as possible with local authorities to ensure that it is developed consistently in accordance with the wishes of local people?

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend in that regard. To enhance the value of any land of which we are disposing, we often need planning permission, which we can obtain only with the help of local authorities. We therefore work very closely with them.

Will there be any disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence land in Scotland, or is it likely that, due to the redeployment of British forces from Germany, the Ministry will be looking to purchase land in Scotland?

It is difficult to say where we might want to purchase land. Where we have training areas, we are keen to enlarge them if possible. Many of the weapons systems that we use now are bigger than before and have longer ranges, and so on. Also, a degree of armour will return from Germany which will need space for use in training. We do not have a closed mind, but we should like to rationalise our training areas, enlarging some that we already have and disposing of smaller ones.

When the Broughton moor site in my constituency is disposed of, will its environmental sensitivity be taken into account?

I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for owning more sites of special scientific interest than anyone other than the national parks. We are extremely good stewards of the land that we have. As to Broughton moor, we shall do all that we can to take environmental considerations into account.

May I impress on my hon. Friend that in Plymouth we are tired of waiting what seems like years for land to be released? All that we ask is for sufficient land so that we may then help ourselves.

I am well aware of the anxiety of people in Plymouth to get on with the whole business of the release and development of Ministry of Defence land. We are doing what we can, but I take my hon. Friend's point that it has been an ongoing saga for some time now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of refitting Polaris submarines in the current financial year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the British nuclear deterrent.

HMS Renown, now nearing the completion of her refit, is the only Polaris submarine under refit during the current year. The cost of the work to date has been about £150 million.

Britain's credible and effective independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our security. The strategic deterrent will continue to be provided by the Polaris force until Trident comes into service from the mid-1990s.

Is not the Polaris fleet plagued with cracks to the nuclear reactor, and has not the game been given away by Mr. Reg Farmer, a former member of the Ministry of Defence safety of nuclear warships committee? Is it not time that the Secretary of State came clean and admitted to the House that the boats are dangerous, the cost of repair and renovation is beyond reasonable expenditure and the boats should be withdrawn? By taking that action, the right hon. Gentleman would be conforming with the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty for the first time.

That question shows the weakness of preparing a supplementary before hearing the answer to the main question. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my reply, he would have realised what rubbish his supplementary was.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the distribution of its nuclear weapons around the country, it is extremely important for Britain to maintain its nuclear deterrent and to be ready for any eventuality?

Certainly I agree. At a time when the world's largest nuclear power is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, if not worse, and when 27,000 nuclear weapons exist there, the vast majority of which are capable of inflicting considerable damage on this and other countries, it would be lunacy for us to undermine our nuclear deterrent. It is the one nuclear shield that we have. Had the advice of some hon. Members been followed over the years, we might now be in a very exposed position.

The Secretary of State must reflect a little on the answer that he has given about the Soviet Union. Does he accept that one of the reasons for the United Kingdom's continued possession of a strategic deterrent was the fact that it would provide another centre of power, and thus create disequilibrium in the mind of a potential foe? If so, how does he justify the fear that there may be a number of fingers on the disintegrating Soviet strategic deterrent, when at the same time he seeks to justify the proliferation of nuclear strategic deterrents in the hands of France, the United Kingdom and the United States?

That is a fairly complicated question, which may confuse people and prevent them from seeing our present need clearly. It is vital that we preserve our own independent nuclear deterrent as protection against nuclear blackmail; it is equally important that we take every possible step—as we are doing—to ensure that the process of rapid political change, and the change of authority that has taken place in what was the Soviet Union, do not lead to a more dangerous situation in regard to the present control and authority over nuclear weapons. To try to wrap up that question in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, or to lose sight of either of those objectives, would be extremely unwise.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that highly unsatisfactory and inadequate reply, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace type 42 destroyers with a new air-defence frigate.

There will be a requirement to replace the type 42 destroyers from around the turn of the century. An 18-month period of exploration with France is under way to consider the prospects for collaboration on an anti-air warfare frigate to meet this requirement.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give us any timetable for the construction of the new vessels, and will he give an assurance that at least 50 per cent.—and preferably more—of the hull and interior construction work will come to United Kingdom shipyards?

We certainly welcome this collaboration and wish to bring it to a successful conclusion. The timetable that my hon. Friend asked about is as follows. After the exploratory period of 18 months, we hope to proceed by mid-1993 with full development, leading to a first order by the mid-1990s. We aim for an in-service date in the early years of the next century. As for equipment, part of the purpose of the exploratory work is to agree a memorandum of understanding to cover all procurement aspects.

Naval construction work of this type will obviously lead to work for subcontractors. In the past six months, two of my constituents have had their passes removed by Ministry of Defence navy police. Both are respectable men and one of them worked on the facility at Faslane for eight months. It is a great pity that passes are being taken away from hard-working people, who are not even given any right of appeal. Will the Minister comment on that?

If the hon. Gentleman will send me details, I will look into the matter. With regard to subcontractors, we are proud of the quality of work produced by them. Any shipbuilding orders feed through into other employment, apart from the main shipbuilders.

While my hon. Friend is considering replacement of the type 42 destroyers, will he bear in mind the urgent decision that he and his colleagues have to take very soon about the future of HMS Polar Circle as a replacement for HMS Endurance? Some of us have recently seen that vessel. We believe that she is a very fine ship and that she is needed by the Royal Navy and the Foreign Office. We therefore hope that a favourable decision will soon be reached regarding HMS Polar Circle.

As has been said in the House previously, my hon. Friend will know that we are committed to the work being done in the south Atlantic, which HMS Polar Circle will shortly be carrying out. I take this opportunity to say that not only that ship but our collaboration in relation to the French frigate and the type 23 frigate orders which will be given shortly show our commitment to naval orders. That is in stark contrast to what would happen if ever the Labour party came to power, with its plans to reduce our spending on equipment by many billions of pounds.

What assurances can the Minister give that in attempting to develop a common requirement for a new air defence frigate we shall not end up with another fiasco of expensive and fruitless bickering between countries with different design requirements? The NFR90 project suffered difficulties of that kind and our involvement in it led to almost two years being wasted. Can the Minister tell us whether Britain's shipyards will be assured of a very early decision on a type 42 replacement, thus allowing for some continuity of work and ending the grave uncertainty in the shipyards so that men and management can get on with what they do best—building ships in British yards?

We have certainly learnt the lessons of the NFR90. One of those lessons was that we had to align the needs of the platform with those of the systems. We are already doing work on that with the French. That is part of the exploratory programme. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the project, but he must face the harsh reality that if we ever had a Labour Government there would be no money available to pursue this project, let alone order any more type 43 frigates.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to encourage competitive tendering for military research and development.

Equipment procurement including development is already subject to competitive tendering wherever practicable. As regards research, once a full trading relationship has been established between the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Research Agency, we intend to implement a progressive extension of competition.

Does my hon. Friend accept that military research and development provides a significant technological spin-off for civilian use? Does he accept, therefore, that if more of the research sponsored by his Department were replaced by competitive tendering by universities, research associations or private companies, the benefits for non-military use could he greatly enhanced?

I respect the point made by my hon. Friend. It might be of interest to the House to hear that already about 40 per cent. of the research undertaken by the Defence Research Agency is subcontracted from the Ministry of Defence to universities and industry—indeed, almost the whole of the development work goes to industry. We certainly welcome collaboration with the civil sector and industry, a good example of which is our work on jet engine technology. We wish to develop that interaction.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a research and development policy and a future procurement policy? Unless there is a prospect of orders, research and development in the military sector is bound to suffer.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows. the research effort in the Ministry of Defence is undergoing substantial change in terms of the Defence Research Agency. Our aim is to ensure that we become more efficient and enhance the effectiveness of our sharp end research.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if' he will make a statement on the transport of nuclear weapons.

Safety and security are of paramount importance in our nuclear weapons transport methods and procedures. We do not move any nuclear weapons by road, and would not do so, unless it was safe to do so.

Why are such weapons transported at all? Have the Government not in effect acknowledged the findings of the Drell panel report on the safety of nuclear weapons by setting up their own review? Will the Minister assure us that he will stop the transportation of any nuclear weapons until the Drell panel findings are issued?

Certainly not. The hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, probably does not realise that her party's policy on nuclear weapons has changed. Nuclear weapons must be kept up to date, and they must be serviced at intervals; if that is not done, they become ineffective. If there is a policy of having nuclear weapons, those weapons must be serviced at intervals to keep them running properly.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been no leakages of radioactive material in any of the convoys travelling to and from the establishment at Burghfield in my constituency?

I can certainly confirm that. As I said earlier, the safety of the carriage of radioactive material is paramount. Although there have been mechanical breakdowns, they have merely affected the vehicles carrying the material. There has never been any question of nuclear radiation seeping out.

I welcome the establishment of the Ministry of Defence working party under Professor Oxburgh in the light of the Drell report, even though the Government had to be dragged a little to achieve that. On the transport of nuclear weapons, which is covered in the Drell report and should therefore be part of the Oxburgh report, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give local authorities notice when nuclear weapons are to be transported through their localities?

When there is any question of those materials being transported, we deal with the local police. I believe that that is quite adequate. The local police are responsible for the safety of their areas. One problem is that some of the local authorities with which we have to deal are extremely left wing and anti-nuclear. They leak information about convoys to members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, resulting in convoys being disrupted and people's lives being put in danger.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Royal Naval Reserve; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 10 December, our aim is that the naval reserves should be

"streamlined but more closely integrated with the Royal Navy."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 733.]

My right hon. Friend will recognise that mine counter-measures is a hazardous undertaking—the penalty for getting it wrong is a very large bang and lots of little bits. As the best way to reduce that risk is regular training, can he explain the logic of mothballing two of the River class MCMVs belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve which undertakes mine counter-measures and of leaving two divisions, including the largest—London division—without a ship?

We have had to take into account the changes in the international situation when considering the RNR. including the lengthening warning time. In those circumstances, it was thought right to reduce some of the activities of the RNR and to make them more relevant to the future.

As the Minister reconsiders the regular-reserve mix of the Royal Navy, as he promised on 10 December, will he ensure that a proper study of task threats is completed and will he create a supplementary list of personnel whom it is planned to axe until that review of task threats is complete?

Clearly, the regular-reserve force mix study will have to take into account what we see as threats and how we intend to deal with them. We expect to make a statement on that in the new year.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to accept that the best training for Royal Navy reservists is with the regular Navy and will he give that priority in the coming operations for the Royal Naval Reserve?

I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall see whether more opportunities can be given to the RNR to train with the regular Navy.

Will the Minister ensure that before the review is completed we shall be able to have adequate information so that we can determine the implications for the various areas and for particular bases which are under threat? Will he give an undertaking today to give us information on recruitment levels, retention levels and the position of one base as compared with another before such a report is produced?

The whole process of rationalising the RNR will be progressed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence and with the RNR itself and it will make proposals.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the air squadrons of the Royal Naval Reserve have been especially effective and exceptionally well recruited and that there have even been one or two Harrier pilots in the reserve? Could not that be an example for the flying service, the Royal Air Force?

The position of the Royal Air Force Reserve is, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that does not have the opportunity to fly aircraft. I do not believe that the Harrier pilots who found themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve will have the opportunity to fly either, but it is certainly useful to have them in the reserve should they be needed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the costs of providing accommodation for those leaving the Army as a result of the reductions in the Army under "Options for Change".

Considerable work has been done on arrangements, not only for accommodation but for the resettlement of those who will be leaving the service in the course of the rundown. We are considering a number of new proposals. I will keep the House informed.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the current level of 14,000 service families who are resettled every year by the Ministry of Defence is certain to increase dramatically during the restructuring? Does the Ministry of Defence yet have an estimate of the number of personnel families who will not be able to make provision for their own housing? Is he aware that that situation will be compounded substantially by the fact that there are about 1,700 ex-service families currently inhabiting Ministry of Defence premises to which, strictly, they have no title? Is not it time that some urgent policy measures were introduced by the Ministry of Defence to deal with the major problem from 1992 onwards?

The hon. Gentleman has correctly established that there is a considerable turnover every year in any case. The rundown and the changes involved in "Options for Change" will add to that. Off the top of my head, I think that the figure is about 25 per cent. on top of what usually happens annually. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes will take place over a four-year period. However, we are actively involved and a number of steps are being taken. I have appointed to a new post—the director general of resettlement—Major-General Burden who has returned from the British Army on the Rhine. He has an excellent record in this field. A number of proposals are being worked on by housing associations, by voluntary housing bodies, by the Royal British Legion and by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, which are working with the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Department of Employment on a whole range of opportunities. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get the feeling from that that a considerable effort is being made by many people to try to tackle the problem in the most effective way.

Will the Secretary of State ask Major-General Burden to come to west Norfolk to have a look at houses on two RAF bases, Sculthorpe and West Raynham, which may close in the future? Will he consider urgently the possibility of the married quarters at the bases being made available to Army personnel who are being made redundant?

I assure my hon. Friend that that matter is one aspect that we are considering. Some service housing is already available to service men on discount purchase, which gives them the opportunity to get on the home ownership ladder. There may be opportunities to rent out existing service property or surplus service property. We are trying to see how we can employ the whole of the defence estate, including married quarters, to help resolve the problem. We will do everything that we can in the area.

Is not the truth of the matter not only that the Secretary of State is doing nothing about the housing needs of the service men and women who will be made redundant, but that he does not even know the facts? That was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He said:

"Information on the private housing arrangements or plans of those Army personnel who have applied for. redundancy is not held by the Ministry of Defence."…[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 356.]

Is not the Secretary of State aware of the deplorably low level of home ownership among other ranks in the armed forces and of the dearth of easily affordable council properties as a result of Government policies? Does the Secretary of State intend to thank those who have given service to Queen and country by making them not only jobless, but homeless?

I am afflicted today by people who prepare their supplementaries and do not bother to listen to the answers. After the answers that I have given, I do not know how anyone can say that nothing is happening on the matter. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to recognise that a considerable amount is being done. There is a challenge to be faced and the hon. Gentleman would make a more constructive contribution if he played a part in helping instead of trying to score cheap party political points when there is a genuine problem to be tackled. For once in his life he should stand up and support service men who need help.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of studies affecting his Department's employment in south Dorset.

My hon. Friend is already aware of the studies into the rationalisation of the Defence Research Agency, the relocation of the Procurement Executive and the review of the Army training base. My hon. Friend will also know that as part of "Defence for the 90s" we are reviewing the scope of naval support, although as I made clear in July, there will be a continuing naval presence at Portland.

May I place it on record that I know that my hon. Friend is doing his best to ensure that south Dorset continues to have a large amount of Ministry of Defence employment? I urge him to look at one current study which concerns the possibility of moving the sea systems control first to temporary accommodation and then, in 1995–96, to permanent accommodation. Will he ensure that the sea systems control moves only when the permanent accommodation is available? Will he locate the naval support command, which would be ideally suited for Portland, in the premises that are then vacated?

My hon. Friend is tireless in trying to protect defence jobs in south Dorset and to increase their numbers there. I am aware of the concern of the people of the Procurement Executive about the move to Bristol. I hear clearly what my hon. Friend said about seeking to avoid a double move. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory. We are carrying out a study now and we shall seek to resolve that uncertainty as soon as we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the estimated total cost of acquiring and maintaining the Trident nuclear weapon system.

The current estimated cost of acquiring the United Kingdom Trident system is £9,863 million. We expect the level of running costs of the Trident force to be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget, not significantly different from those of Polaris.

Are not we entitled to be told the whole truth, as revealed by Greenpeace, which is that the total lifetime cost of Trident will be more than £23 billion? About half that could be saved if Trident were cancelled now. Instead of extravagant spending on such an unnecessary weapons system, will the Secretary of State now make the peace dividend a reality by cancelling Trident and investing the money in areas such as education and the national health service?

The hon. Gentleman must be unaware that his party is now pledged to keep the nuclear deterrent, according to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). I have made it clear that the cost of running a Trident deterrent will be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget. I regard that as an economical insurance and the ultimate safeguard against nuclear blackmail. I regard it at present as an important insurance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons why we are updating Trident are basically the same reasons as caused the Labour Government to update our nuclear deterrent by bringing in Chevaline, the difference being that we are doing it openly and they did it under wraps?

I agree absolutely. We are told continually that the Labour party is united on this issue. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has shown how divided it remains on the nuclear deterrent.

While accepting the need for the United Kingdom to have the protection of a strategic nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future, may I ask the Secretary of State whether, as a result of his recent conversations with his French counterpart and the agreement reached at Maastricht, consideration has been given to greater co-operation in strategic nuclear matters with France?

We are in close contact and, as is known, we are examining in the sub-strategic nuclear field how we could work more closely with the French Government on a wide range of defence matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most sensible people in Britain recognise that expenditure on our nuclear deterrent is about the best and safest investment that we can make, especially in view of the alarming situation in Russia and the break-up of the former Soviet Union? Will my right hon. Friend not stint in providing Britain with the best independent deterrent?

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. [Interruption.] At a time when the largest nuclear power in the world is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, when that massive nuclear arsenal is under some central control of the remaining central authorities, and when our keen concern is to ensure that that security is real, it seems absolutely unthinkable that we should not have our own protection and the ultimate assurance of an independent deterrent. [Interruption.]

Order. These are important questions. I ask the House to listen to them, please.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects TASM to be in service; and where they will be based.

The WE177 free-fall bomb will be approaching the end of its service life around the turn of the century, but no decision has yet been taken on the system to replace it, or where it will be based.

In their discussions on the replacement system, have the Government talked to the German Government about the possibility of basing a new nuclear missile system in Germany? If not, when do the Government intend to have such discussions? Would not it be far better to seek an effective non-proliferation treaty than to go for a new generation of nuclear weapons?

I have just returned from a NATO meeting last week at which we agreed the military strategy that will accompany the strategic concept now agreed, of which Germany is a prominent supporter. NATO will continue to base effective and up-to-date sub-strategic nuclear forces in Europe. The alliance strategic concept, of which Germany is a strong supporter, makes that point clear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the answer that he has just given is further reinforced by the fact that several third-world countries, including some middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Algeria and perhaps Libya, are currently acquiring nuclear weapons? For all those reasons, it is essential that we keep a sub-strategic nuclear system in western Europe.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not only do we need a strategic deterrent, but there is a strong argument that a sub-strategic deterrent continues to be relevant at a time when there is a real risk of several new nations appearing which have some form of nuclear capability and when we risk the proliferation of not merely equipment but perhaps technology from some of the scientific bases in the former Soviet Union. My hon. Friend's point is very important.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department to prevent bullying in the services; and how much money has been spent in dealing with this matter since June 1988.

The services take a serious view of bullying and it has been made very clear that bullying and ill-treatment will not be tolerated. A range of measures to combat bullying has been introduced, including the banning of initiation ceremonies and, specifically in the Army, the implementation of a training package on personnel management.

Information on expenditure is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Is the Minister aware that I welcome both advances which have been made, but it will be obvious to him from my correspondence with the Department that some bullying still goes on. The only way to deal with that is by the appointment of a military ombudsman, who can deal with the problems objectively and is seen to do so. Please may we have an ombudsman?

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the existing disciplinary systems within the services are inadequate. I do not believe that to be so. They are objective and deal with such cases fairly. I do not think that anything would be gained by having an ombudsman to handle those problems.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Last week the head teachers association of Cambridgeshire wrote to the county council to say that because of critical shortages of books, equipment and facilities and because of oversized classes, it would have serious difficulty providing the national curriculum. Under those circumstances, what advice does the Prime Minister give to his constituents—to buy private education, as he does?

In Cambridgeshire the education standard spending assessment for the current year is £225 million, 16·4 per cent. higher than last year. There has been another substantial increase for 1992–93, an increase which safeguards the position of all children in Cambridgeshire.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the British Medical Association's somewhat belated conversion to the concept of fund-holding GPs? Does he agree with the BMA that that should now be extended to every GP who wants to hold a fund?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that GP fund-holding has been proving successful and has been extending quite dramatically. I welcome the fact that that is the case. We are currently considering how the benefits of fund holding can be extended and will make an announcement in the new year.

In the interests of establishing the causes of the present mortgage crisis, could the Prime Minister confirm that, as Minister of State for Social Security, he halved mortgage support for newly unemployed people and that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put the mortgage rate up to its highest in history?

If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework—rather unusually—better than he has, he would know, first, that the change in the 16-week rule was introduced after lengthy consultations with building societies and, secondly, that at the time, they said that there was no reason for people to lose their homes because of that reduction; nor have they.

I think the answer that the Prime Minister was groping for was yes. Since he and his policies are uniquely responsible for the difficulties being experienced and the record repossessions and arrears, will he accept the obligation for introducing a proper mortgage rescue scheme, like the one recommended by the Labour party, instead of trying to shift the blame on to everyone else?

The alleged mortgage rescue scheme proposed by the Labour party is a farce and has been denounced as such and the right hon. Gentleman should know it. As for the real problem, we are in the midst of discussions with the Building Societies Association and others and in due course we shall make an announcement that will build on the assistance that we have already provided. We have been considering the problem for some time—[Interruption]—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has only just discovered it.

What is a farce, a tragic farce, is the Government's record—a Government who came to power to provide a property-owning democracy and ended with a debt-ridden recession. Since, because of the right hon. Gentleman's policies, the building societies stand to lose £1 billion because of mortgage repossessions and since local authorities are having to spend £500 million on bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation, does not the Prime Minister think that the rescue mortgage scheme that we have promoted would be the effective way to ensure not only the relief of misery for scores of thousands of families, but that at least he did the honourable thing by his victims?

The alleged mortgage rescue scheme about which the hon. Gentleman boasts was described this morning by an independent commentator as

"a policy made in an Enid Blyton story book"—[ Interruption.]

Order.

The right hon. Gentleman's policy is ludicrous. As for the levels of owner occupation, there are 3·5 million more owner-occupiers today than there were in 1979 and no doubt 3·5 million more than there would have been had the right hon. Gentleman been in government.

If one were looking for the reasons for the present situation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been the departure of the building societies and other lenders from the traditional concept of not lending more than 75 per cent. of actual valuation, nor, from the point of view of personal status—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his point.

more than one quarter of monthly salary? If those criteria had been adhered to, many people would not be in their present position. Does my right hon. Friend agree—

Too long.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being rather long-winded.

Will my right hon. Friend consider legislation to ensure that those traditional criteria are adhered to in future to stop this cyclical problem arising every so many years?

It is a sad fact that many people over-extended their mortgage commitments and now face difficulties. The Government are playing their part to alleviate those difficulties and we expect the mortgage lenders—all the responsible ones—to play their part in that. The sensible ones know that it is in their interests to do so.

If the Prime Minister is really keen to assist families who now stand in danger of having their homes repossessed, will he recognise the anomaly that exists between those on low incomes who pay rent and receive housing benefit and those on low incomes who pay mortgages and do not?

I recognise that point very well. But the right hon. Gentleman should not pose, as he frequently does, as the friend of the home-owner—[Interruption.]—Oh, no. His policies are to put up taxes and abolish mortgage income tax relief. He should stop coming to the House pretending to support home-owners when his policies would discriminate against them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that only the very wealthy or the very foolish can afford to go to the libel courts for justice? If ordinary people are to have justice, perhaps a jury should find whether somebody is guilty of libel, but these £250,000 and £500,000 judgments are not justice but folly. Should not judges be able to decide what award is justified?

That is a matter on which I should be wise to seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor. Even in the heat and battle of Prime Minister's questions, it is best to go away and reflect on some matters.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the port of Leith.

I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to visit the Edinburgh area again before too long.

That is welcome news. Leithers will give the Prime Minister a warm welcome, but they will put him in the hot seat because of mass unemployment, homelessness and general misery, which have been experienced not just in my constituency, but throughout Britain. Nevertheless, being constructive, members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have published a report entitled "Kick-start", which makes various proposals on how to get people back to work and revive the economy. Will the Prime Minister read that report and, more importantly, act on it? If not, the lessons are clear—there will not be a kick-start come the next election, but the Tories will be kicked out. That message is clear in my constituency and I am sure that it is clear in others.

The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that during the course of this Parliament, unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 32 per cent. The Scottish Office has taken a number of initiatives on homelessness, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the four Scottish cities, £3·5 million in extra capital allocations have been made available for homelessness and a further £4 million extra capital for additional homelessness projects was made available last November. From April 1991, deficits on all local authority hostels met by Government subsidies will be worth an extra £1 billion a year. So a great deal has been done by the Scottish Office. In future, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the dramatic reduction in unemployment in his constituency during this Parliament.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December 1991.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment from America and Japan has brought highly paid, highly skilled and highly trained new jobs to areas like south Wales? Does he also agree that to brand such investment as "sweatshops" is a grave affront to the employees of those companies? The Labour party is telling those investors that they are not welcome here and encouraging them to go elsewhere.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is within the recollection of the House that, some Question Times ago, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was boasting about the Japanese investment in his constituency. Perhaps he will tell us whether that is "sweatshop" investment. If it is not, will he denounce his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who made the comment?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister recall when, as Minister for Social Security, he cut mortgage support in half and said that there would be no reason to suppose that repossessions would increase? He said, "It will not happen". In view of that, does not he owe many thousands of families in Britain a personal apology?

The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully. The Building Societies Association assured the Government at the time that, when the rule was introduced, there would be no reason to expect people to lose their homes as a result and they have not done so. The simplest inquiry by the hon. Gentleman would have ascertained that fact.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Mrs. Lydia Simmons, the Labour chairman of the housing committee in Slough, on her appointment as a member of the board of the NHS trust for Wexham Park hospital in my constituency? Does he agree that there is room for sensible people of all political persuasions to serve the community through NHS hospital trusts?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need people of talent, whatever their political persuasions, in such public positions and I look forward to people of talent taking them up regularly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister promise the House that no senior citizen, sick or disabled person need die from hypothermia or any illnesses resulting from it because they do not have the money to heat their homes? Does the Prime Minister agree that the elderly, sick and disabled should automatically receive a heating allowance every winter instead of having to go cap in hand to the Government? Does not he understand that it is action, not words, that the elderly, sick and disabled of Britain require of him?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the House was advised in the summer of a new scheme to assist people during periods of very cold weather—well over I million payments are expected to be made for the recent cold spell. Those payments were not available under previous Governments.

I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 1, line 10, after 'beginning', insert

'in 1992, the Secretary of State shall by order provide that 100 per cent. of liability for personal community charge shall be eligible for community charge benefit and in the year beginning in '.

If there is one single step that we could take to relieve the suffering and misery of millions and, at the same time, remove chaos and costs from the administration of the last year of the poll tax, it is surely the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution. If we lived in a sensible world in which democracy worked effectively, that is what would happen, for hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly pressed for the abolition of that contribution. Successive Conservative Members did so on 13 and 26 March.

I welcome the fact that the principle that no one should make a 20 per cent. minimum contribution to the Government's alternative to the poll tax has already been conceded, as has the principle that there should be no clawback from the amount allegedly put into benefits to compensate for that contribution; an announcement to that effect was made at a Government press conference.

Although we welcome those measures wholeheartedly, we wish to ask a simple question. The principle has been conceded; no clawback will take place after April 1993. Why can that not happen immediately? In Committee, the Minister of State said that the new tax would he a different tax. The poll tax was a people tax, he said—a personal tax—and it was therefore impossible to abolish the minimum contribution before the introduction of a property tax.

That is a trifle strange, because the 20 per cent. contribution was introduced under the old rating system. The Government have conceded that they were meddling with the previous principle of allowing those on nil or very low incomes to pay nothing when they introduced a 20 per cent. property tax contribution. They seem to think, however, that the principle that the poll tax must engender a universal contribution of at least 20 per cent. cannot be removed between now and April 1993.

The truth is that a dispute is in progress within the Government, and even within the Department of the Environment. The Secretary of State believes, and has made it clear—

Here we go.

We do not have to go far: we always find disagreement in the Conservative ranks. The Secretary of State believes that the contribution should have been abolished months ago, and we are very pleased about that; the Under-Secretary of State—who, bless his cotton socks, lives in a world of his own—cannot even understand why we want to abolish it. When, a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a simple statement—that the 20 per cent. contribution should go now—the Minister said, "Why'?" The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities does not believe in the abolition of the 20 per cent., so we do not even have to debate with him why; he understands why he does not want it to be abolished. He thinks that every person, whatever their means—even if they have no income to pay it, which applies to 3 million women who are subject, with their husbands, to joint and several liability—should make a contribution, because he still believes in that charge. Everybody else, however, is left with the mess that has been created, not merely in terms of individual difficulty and suffering but in terms of the administrative and legal chaos engendered by the problems of collection. The cost of collection is something that even those who are willing to contemplate the misery of the poll tax are able to understand.

In the first short debate yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) raised the 20 per cent. question and the difficulty that faces students who have never been compensated for the 20 per cent. contribution, the Minister of State suggested that the Audit Commission had not come down firmly in favour of the abolition of contribution and questioned my hon. Friend's figures. It may be instructive, therefore—in order to prevent the waters from being muddied—to put on record what the Audit Commission said. In response to the Government's original consultation paper on the council tax, "A New Tax for Local Government", in paragraph 15 the Audit Commission said:

"The administrative costs of the principle of universal payment of community charge are high. On average, after taking into account the uplift in income support which they have received, charge payers, who receive 80 per cent. relief, contributed about £6 a year net to the public purse in 1990–91."

In paragraph 16 the Audit Commission said:

"Pursuing these defaulters for such small amounts is not a good use of scarce recovery resources when there are much larger debts outstanding."

In the document entitled "Administration of the Community Charge: Some Longer Term Considerations" the Audit Commission said:

"Exempting 20 per cent. of payers would more than pay for itself and would ease the pressure on the system, particularly in areas where collection is very difficult, anyway."

Those clear quotations from what the Audit Commission said vindicate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and suggest clearly that there is widespread support for abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution now in order to prevent the chaos that already exists over collecting the poll tax now.

I should have thought that the problems of collection would have been a matter of concern for anyone who claimed that he or she was in favour of probity and prudence in respect of public finance. The problems of collection are mirrored nationally in other forms of taxation, with £4 billion of tax outstanding from the last financial year in income tax, value-added tax, corporation tax and duties. Over £1 billion is outstanding on VAT. As much as £364 million of income tax was written off last year, never mind awaiting collection. I must be compensating for some of that lost revenue because I am still trying to get the Inland Revenue to pay back some of the money that it owes me.

The problems of non-collection of the poll tax are exacerbated at local level in a way that none of us could have foreseen. We made strong predictions about the problems which would occur. That is why we believe that it is crucial to tackle them head on, not in the daft ways about which we heard in Committee. We were told that local authorities that were struggling to collect the tax should be penalised by ensuring that their services had to be cut still further—a more insensitive suggestion is unimaginable. Lord Boyd-Carpenter repeated that suggestion from somewhere in the depths of the countryside.

Inner-city local authorities have had to face the problems of deprivation, education, housing, transport, the environment, leisure and public health while struggling through the courts with the 7·5 million summonses which had to be taken out this year to enforce collection of the poll tax.

Conservatives in this House and in the other place have made stupid suggestions about how to deal with this genuine problem. Some people ask, "Could not the tax be collected through deductions in benefits?" The need to go through the courts and obtain deduction orders contributes to the administrative and legal difficulties. Even if deductions from benefits could be managed—suddenly, that has become a favoured solution to the problems engendered by inadequate incomes and by increased interest rates and mortgage charges—we cannot continue to pile deduction on deduction. There are deductions for mortgage interest payments, deductions for the direct fuel costs of people with small children or elderly relatives who would otherwise be threatened with having their service cut off, deductions for outstanding community care loans—another Government invention—and deductions for water charges.

One cannot have all those deductions and expect people to have their poll tax contributions deducted as well. They would be left with virtually no money with which to buy their food and clothes. Presumably, their only recourse would be to EEC handouts and the Salvation Army. If one took that into account—and presumably a gift at Christmas to salve someone else's conscience—they would still be left in the new year with the impossibility of making ends meet. That is the reality of the struggle that people face in paying the poll tax.

What are we to do? How do we persuade the Government about the reality? Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out the struggle that occurs in Strathclyde, which has faced an additional year of the poll tax, and the £34 million of cuts which had to be made to cope with last year's problems of non-collection. Those are real cuts and difficulties, not imagined ones.

Conservative Members would dismiss that point on the ground that a Labour authority cannot manage its affairs, but it would be difficult to pursue that case. Strathclyde council has never been pilloried as a loony-left council. It struggles with the problems that occur in major inner-city areas of Glasgow and a major rural hinterland.

We must try to persuade Conservative Members that there are other reasons why it would be prudent for them to agree to the abolition now of the 20 per cent. contribution. The cost of doing that would be small.

Conservative Members keep exaggerating what the cost of abolition would be. It seemed to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in May and to myself in June and November that the cost of the 20 per cent. contribution kept going up, sometimes by as much as £200 million! It has been spelt out again and again—and I have already mentioned the Audit Commission—that the cost of not collecting or of struggling to collect is so great that it would be a saving if we abolished the 20 per cent. now. It would allow local authorities to concentrate specifically on those people who can afford to pay the poll tax but who are currently not paying. It would allow them to ensure that their administrative time, their legal expertise and the time of the courts could be spent in endeavouring to do what Conservative Members are constantly telling us should be done and which they now have the opportunity to help us to do.

Abolition would not only help those who are struggling to raise the 20 per cent. contribution but would have a beneficial economic effect nationally. [Interruption.] I might be able to enlighten the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), if he listens carefully. I am keen that he should understand why we want to abolish the 20 per cent. in case he again makes the mistake of saying that he does not understand why. The national debt is also dramatically affected by the non-collection rate. Authorities have to borrow to pay the basic revenue running costs and because the cost of borrowing is so great for them, and because the increased public sector borrowing requirement to cover that has an effect on the national debt and on the inflation rate, it is important that the Government take that into account. In that way, we might persuade the Government that the abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution could help to solve the problems of the nation as a whole.

Abolition would not cost very much because nobody has been able to prove what the true cost would be. In Committee I think it was the Minister of State who for the first time came up with some figures for the earmarked contribution. For next year I think that he suggested that with the uprating the figure would be £1·40 a week for a single adult under the age of 25. That is the contribution that they claim that they have made towards the amount that has to be raised, but only a few months ago the Government made their position very clear. They said:

"There is no specific amount for the community charge in any one individual's benefit."—[Official Report, 27 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 446.]

The Government said that the compensation formed "an integral part" of overall rates. Either it does or it does not; either it is included in those benefits as a general contribution or it is not. The abolition of the contribution and the decision which has been taken for 1993 that it should not be clawed back could easily be applied to the poll tax. If it were, there would not only be a sigh of relief from those affected but we could get on with the job of trying to see out the poll tax in a reasonably orderly fashion.

Those on the lowest incomes and those who are struggling to pay the 20 per cent. contribution and to make ends meet would not only be relieved of the contribution but would have gained their share of the benefit from the switch to value added tax. Those on the least income were the ones who gained the least from having the £140 flat rate reduction last March, but they end up having to pay the VAT increase for the benefit of those who gained most.

I hope that the Government will take on board what I have said and will be willing to respond in a reasonably acceptable fashion. I have presented the case without rhetoric and in a mild and gentle fashion. I have not even had to resort to my box of tissues which I offered round in Committee to try to avoid getting the cold that I now have. I hope that I have managed to get across a reasonable case in a reasonable fashion.

If there was ever time when the Prime Minister could make reality of the gentle rhetoric of his conversion from the harsh and uncaring doctrines of she who nurtured him—and he has shown no real signs of that in domestic, political and social policy—it is now through this measure. The Government should abolish the 20 per cent. contribution and help the individuals affected which would help to abolish the poll tax with some semblance of order, financial competence and common sense. It is not a lot to ask.

I will make some brief points which arise from the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He said that if it is expensive to collect a tax, it should not be imposed or collected. I hope that that will be the principle of any Labour Administration who take office in the 21st century. It will be very expensive to collect my tax, so I look forward to its not being imposed.

There is a slight contradiction in one concept. We always hear from the Opposition that local authorities are starved of money, yet it is proposed that local authorities should be more starved of money by exempting people who, I take it, the Opposition imagine might vote for them from having to pay anything into the kitty.

There is nothing unfair about what the hon. Member for Brightside calls the poll tax, which is in fact the community charge. It is a simple licence fee for local authority services. If we have the benefit of those services—I do not—we use them. What is wrong with paying a licence fee for that? To bleat that there are people who cannot afford it, although they can afford to drink in pubs, to have television sets, to run motor cars, to go to football matches and the like, is special pleading. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Brightside should suggest that if it is expensive, as it is, to collect something as simple as a television licence fee, one should merely be told that one does not have to pay. If it is expensive for somebody to clean out the dustbin, presumably one does not get the dustbin cleaned. That is the other side of the coin. Under the socialist millennium and other Kinnocchio, we shall have in our imperial concept—

Order. It is not in order to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by such a name.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was not referring to the Leader of the Opposition, because it does not occur to me that he will ever be Prime Minister of Britain. I was referring to an imaginary empire.

First, the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously has not grasped the point. What we propose will save local authorities money by taking away from them the duty to collect the 20 per cent. charge. Secondly, can we assume from the nature of the speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making that he intends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill at 10 o'clock tonight? What he is saying does not match the principles of the council tax. There will be 100 per cent. rebates, so many people will have nothing to pay for local services. He opposes not the socialist millennium, but the millennium of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

I have not yet come to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am dealing with the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. What I do at 10 o'clock tonight is a matter which is deep in my conscience and will not be revealed even to the Whips at this time.

The philosophy of the Opposition is easy to follow. It goes this way: "The local authorities are starved of money. Those whom we think will vote for us should not have to contribute to that money." Are we seriously saying that, because it costs as much to issue a 1s 6d postal order as it does to issue a £25 postal order, the people who buy the Is 6d ones should not have to pay for them? That is essentially what the hon. Member for Brightside is saying. It is a fatuous concept.

If the hon. Member for Brightside can produce for me cases of people who have deprived themselves of paying the television licence fee or the car tax, never go to a pub and live in meanness because of the 20 per cent. factor, I will say hurrah. But I believe that the whole thing is a charade of whingeing and whining, complaints and mercy begging. Let us all simply pay our licence fee for local authority services. Let the Opposition stop complaining that local authorities are underfunded while suggesting measures by which they should be further underfunded.

The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has completely missed the point. We are well aware that he does not like the new council tax and that he favours the poll tax. That is fair enough. He has made his objections clear. I respect his view, although I do not agree with it for many reasons, which we discussed in Committee. One reason is that the tax should be based on a person's ability to pay. That is what it is all about.

By no stretch of the imagination could we say that many of the people caught by the 20 per cent. rule have the ability to pay. That is why they do not pay. There is no question of going to football matches for the people who pay the 20 per cent. There is no question of having a car or going out to the pub at night. They simply cannot afford it. Many of them have about £42 a week to live on, to clothe themselves and so on. On the social argument alone, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman touched, we should do away with the 20 per cent. rule because the people to whom it applies are the least able to care for themselves with the money that they have.

But we do not argue on the social point. We are arguing on the basis of the cost of collecting the 20 per cent. I see my borough treasurer fairly regularly. The local authority is short of money because of the difficulties that it faces. When we debate the standard spending assessment, we will deal with the reasons why the authority is short of money. When we discussed the new council tax, the borough treasurer wanted two things. One was to stop having to collect the 20 per cent. from people whom he was having to pursue through the courts. If they cannot pay the 20 per cent., how can they pay the 20 per cent. plus the cost of going to court? That does not bear argument and will merely increase the debt.

In Committee, we argued about the impossible position in which local authorities would find themselves when they tried to collect the poll tax. My local authority, which is small compared to many, made 60,000 alterations to the register in nine months of the financial year. It issued 57,007 reminder notices, 46,164 final notices and 12,457 summonses.

The police can no longer take the summonses out as they are too bogged down. If they do, the courts cannot deal with them because they are too bogged down. My authority has issued 9,680 liability orders and 5,698 financial information requests and has authorised attachment of earnings in 438 cases, attachment of income support in 371 and issued 149 warrants to bailiffs.

All those transactions w ill continue while the authority introduces the new tax. The death of the poll tax arid the birth of the new council tax are causing problems within the financial department and the treasurer asks two things: first, do away with the 20 per cent. rule and, secondly, allow local authorities to design the new format for the tax, rather than running it centrally. The people on the ground are more capable of dealing with the problem than are central Government.

The disadvantages of the 20 per cent. rule for local authorities—its collection, the routine of trying to get it, and finishing up in court—so far outweigh the financial benefits which accrue from it that it would save them money if they could do away with it. Under the old system, local authorities would review the rent liabilities—people who had not paid the rent and thus had not paid the rates, as they were built into the rent structure. As hon. Members will know, treasurers used to cut their losses. When they felt that it would cost more to pursue liabilities than they were likely to get back, they wiped out the liability. That is what is happening at present with those people who have to pay 20 per cent.

If borough treasurers find that they have crossed over the border and can no longer recoup their money, surely in any financial circles it would be argued that it would be sensible for them to cut their losses. If authorities pursue 20 per cent. of the tax through the courts, they will only get themselves into more debt rather than recoup their money.

Abolition of the 20 per cent. rule would give local authorities room to manoeuvre to pursue those who owe the largest amount, as it would release staff, and save police time and court time. It would be a saving all the way down the line, rather than a loss. It seems too ridiculous for words if, for the sake of ideology, we force local authorities to spend more to recover less. It is time that we considered the problem more seriously than the Government have done until now. Let us do away with the tax and get down to the business of running local authorities in a sensible way.

It will not surprise Opposition Members who served on the Standing Committee that I rise to speak on the amendment because we must consider what the Opposition are asking. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in reasonable terms, suggested that we should allow local authorities to wipe out the responsibility of those who fall into the 20 per cent. community charge category, and that we should put that in the statute—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am merely quoting back what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech. The Opposition give the cost of collection as the reason.

For the sake of clarity, I must put it on record that we did not suggest an indemnity, or wiping out the debt that is currently owed.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that clear, because it is a fundamental point.

The important aspect of the argument of the hon. Member for Brightside was that, because of the cost of collecting the debt and the involvement of so much manpower—he drew attention to the situation in Strathclyde, and the splendid councillors there; I imagine that that is why Strathclyde is so short of policemen—[Interruption.] The Opposition are suggesting that, if their proposal were adopted, local authorities would be able to concentrate their energies on collecting the remainder of the debt. He claimed that some people were able to pay but had not paid.

4.30 pm

What is to prevent a local authority from taking that action now? If a local authority wished to separate debts between the 20 per cent. and other categories—it would not be difficult to do that because it is clear from the value of the debt whether people are in the 20 per cent. or another category—it could chase the outstanding higher debts. That would be a businesslike and logical approach to the problem. Obviously, one should go for the bigger debts first. The cost of collection makes that the logical approach to take. That would allow the authority the scope that the hon. Gentleman claims the amendment would provide. In other words, I argue that authorities already have that scope if they wish to use it.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The local authority determines whom it takes to court and which debts are chased. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) explained what happened with rent arrears. As he said, when it was known that certain arrears would never be recouped—because the cost of chasing them would be so great—they were written off.

The hon. Gentleman served, as I did, in Committee on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and will be aware that the law was changed under that measure in terms of collection between the rating system and the poll tax. He is right to say that, under the old rating system, the local authority had the ability to write off a sum if it wished to do so. That course is no longer available to an authority under the new system, and that is one reason why we are in our present mess.

The proposal about which I was speaking was put forward by Labour Members, and I was simply commenting on it. Local authorities can chase such debts as they determine in law shall be chased. If authorities do not chase higher debts, as against those in the 20 per cent. category, it is their decision not to go after them. I understood the hon. Member for Brightside to claim that Strathclyde faced financial problems because of the number of people in the 20 per cent. category and the need for the authority to use so much manpower to chase that debt. He went on to say what ratio of the total debt was represented by the number of people in the 20 per cent. category.

Representing 70 per cent.

Yes, 70 per cent. of the debt in Strathclyde, being the number in the 20 per cent. category. Hence, the authority should be chasing those in the 30 per cent. category, if it thinks it can get the money which is owed.

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand Scottish law on this matter, and I leave it to my English hon. Friends to deal with the law applying to authorities elsewhere in the country. Local authorities in Scotland are obliged to take out warrants against those in debt. The Act instructs them to do that. Once a warrant is taken out, it is for the sheriff officer to decide who will and who will not be proceeded against.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults his former hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about that, for he probably knows more about the detail of the provision of the Act than any other hon. Member. Having travelled the route of a non-payer, he was on the receiving end of what a local authority is capable of doing under the law as it stands. The hon. Gentleman's case fell down because he said that, if we gave local authorities the ability to write off and do what they wished with the 20 per cent. payers, they could then concentrate their energies on the rest. Nothing under the present legislation stops them proceeding against those who cannot pay but should pay.

The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is simply confusing the argument, and I suspect that he is doing so deliberately.

In a previous incarnation, I used to issue warrants. I was a provincial solicitor for the South of Scotland electricity board, so I know the warrant system perfectly well. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, before the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, agents acting on behalf of a person who was owed money, whether substantial or insignificant sums, could pick and choose between the debtors against whom they proceeded.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way in due course.

It is significant that, under the 1987 legislation, local authorities were obliged to take out warrant proceedings against all and sundry. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) may speak about this point, but I understand that the only discretion allowed by the 1987 Act was that priority could be given to the order in which instructions were given to sheriff officers to pursue debtors. Local authorities had discretion to that extent only. If that is what the hon. Member for Tayside, North is trying to say in his confused way, I agree with him, but I suspect that he is pursuing the argument simply to confuse the matter, which amounts to administrative chaos and much hardship for those who cannot pay.

The hon. Gentleman is getting it right.

That is encouraging.

I have been following the argument from a social security viewpoint. Alas, I was not privileged to be one of the chosen few who served on the Standing Committee, although I read some of the proceedings with interest. When the Minister winds up, will he say what consideration the Department gave to that question before the legislation? I perfectly understand the exigencies of a political emergency that had to be dealt with quickly, but was active consideration given to dealing with that problem and abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution? What is the current assessment of the cost of that? It would be helpful to the debate if the Minister could say a word about that, because his Department must have an estimate, although it may be difficult to arrive at an accurate figure.

I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security that compensation would not be clawed back, because £700 million is not an insignificant figure. There was much uncertainty about whether the Government would go all the way and haul that money back out of the pockets of those who qualified for income support, to add to the other misery that such people were suffering. The Government's made the right response to that problem.

Nevertheless, the problem in Scotland is peculiar to the extent that the legislation applied for a 12-month additional period. Nineteen-eighty-nine was a particularly difficult period for those on low incomes, because they had just begun to feel the effects of the Social Security Act 1986, which took effect in 1988. Water rates, particularly north of the border but also I suspect in other parts of the country, started to bite. Many people lost single payments to which they were entitled. Much of the transitional relief was taken out of the system as the relief funds that had quite rightly been introduced ran out.

The combination of all those factors in 1989–90, particularly in Scotland, took a heavy toll of pensioners who used to qualify for supplementary pensions and, under the new income support system, received pensioner premiums. Much hardship was caused. All of us north of the border—I speak for all parties—heard people on low incomes, particularly pensioners, explain how they simply could no longer make ends meet. When two-pensioner households had to pay two 20 per cent. contributions, it made the difference between profit and loss. Those who had previously been able to manage found that the combination of changes, including the 20 per cent. contribution, made it impossible for them to make ends meet.

As a result, a high proportion—some estimates make it 15 per cent., some as high as 40 per cent.—of people subject to the 3 million warrants issued north of the border have found it impossible to make ends meet. Discussions that I have held with representatives of citizens advice bureaux and other poverty pressure groups suggest that there is a continuing problem which has been rolling on since 1989–90 during the two or three years of the poll tax. Those problems are getting worse.

Many pensioners are now taking recourse in the deregulated credit market; they borrow money from money lenders. Some of them buy their consumer durables and clothing from catalogues that enable them to buy on credit. Many of them are storing up problems that will get worse before they get better. The Department had a duty to consider that combination of circumstances, and I hope that the Minister will say that that aspect has at least been considered. The Department faced a difficult political problem, and, like everyone else, I welcome the fact that the poll tax has been abandoned. However, when considering alternatives, the Department had a duty to consider all the circumstances before it opted for the Bill.

It is a great shame, a tragedy, that the opportunity was not taken to abolish that level of difficulty in 1992, as the amendment suggests. I accept that it may have been expensive to do so. However, no other single act of the Government could have more effectively ameliorated the continuing problems of financing the poll tax.

I subscribe entirely not just to the content of the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), but to the way in which he deployed the argument. I do not think that we should give the issue a high political profile, although of course it contains political aspects. The hon. Gentleman made his proposal in a measured way. His suggestion was underscored by the essential administrative argument and the Audit Commission's claims, which I think are now widely accepted by hon. Members.

Huge administrative costs are involved in collecting the 20 per cent. contribution from those who are least well-off and sending out poll tax book after poll tax book through doors every time there is a change, keeping the registers up to date and employing extra staff in local government. One aspect that riled people in the small market towns that I represent in south-east Scotland involved the adverts that were seen week after week for local government officials in finance departments on wages that were, for my part of the country, relatively high. Such officers were being employed in droves. New computer equipment and computer operatives were also being taken on to keep the administration under control.

They have managed to do remarkably well in south-east Scotland, where the non-payment rate is relatively low. That is because people in my district of the country are honest, law-abiding citizens, as they were in the 16th century, when they used to murder Englishmen with gay abandon. We celebrate that every year in our common riding festivals, to which hon. Members are hereby invited——

rose——