Sitting of 3 February 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the numbers employed in the coal industry in Scotland in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) currently.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): British Coal has informed my right hon. Friend that in March 1980 and March 1990, its own employees in Scotland numbered 22,000 and 1,600 respectively. The current figure is 1,424. In addition, the opencast industry currently provides employment for more than 1,500 people in Scotland.
    Mr. Clarke: Has the Secretary of State met British Coal in Scotland to establish why it did not tender for the full amount of coal required by Scottish Power? He should bear in mind that Scotland has millions of tonnes of coal stocks. If he has not had such a meeting, will he say when he will have one—because it will have an effect on employment?
    Mr. Stewart: I am, of course, aware of the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman has had with the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry and of the reply that came from British Coal on this matter. In that correspondence the hon. Gentleman expressed himself in his customary robust way.
    These are matters for commercial agreement between British Coal and Scottish Power, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by British Coal's success in selling not only 250,000 tonnes under the 1992 tender, to which he referred, but 440,000 tonnes under the negotiated contract ending 31 March 1993. Both those sales are over and above the existing five-year contract between British Coal and Scottish Power.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: While ever mindful of the contribution made by coal to fulfilling Scotland's energy requirements, does my hon. Friend agree that the levels of investment and numbers of jobs involved in the North sea
    306
    oil and gas industries must be fully taken into consideration when assessing Scotland's future energy requirements?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, who is particularly knowledgeable about matters relating to the oil and gas industries, makes a valid point. Coal has an important role, especially in the export of electricity from Scotland, but my hon. Friend is also right to point to the key importance to the Scottish economy of the oil and gas-related industries, which currently employ—from memory—97,400 people, almost 70,000 of whom are onshore. These industries are, therefore, of crucial importance not only to Scotland's energy needs but to the general health of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister accept that part of the reason for the decline in mining jobs in Scotland is the Government's complete lack of an integrated energy policy? In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), whose point I raised earlier with the President of the Board of Trade and to which I am still awaiting a satisfactory answer, may I ask the Minister to investigate the astonishing claim by the chief executive of Scottish Power to the effect that British Coal did not even bid for a contract to supply 800,000 tonnes of coal to Scottish power stations? Is it not about time that the Government exercised their responsibility to intervene to stop this nonsense and to save Scotland's mining industry?
    Mr. Stewart: British Coal made a bid to supply 250,000 tonnes and in its letter to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) it gave Scottish Power's explanation of the change in circumstances that led to increased orders under that tender. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Power has said that 80 per cent. of its coal purchases in 1992–93 will be from Scottish sources.

    Local Authority Finance
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the finances and value-for-money record of Scottish local authorities.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland is statutorily responsible for ensuring financial propriety and that value for money is achieved in Scottish local government. I have at present no plans to review that position.
    Mr. Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate for the commission to investigate the allegations of corruption against Monklands district council? Those allegations relate to serious matters which include nepotism, the employment of perhaps 30 close relatives of councillors, religious discrimination, and political favouritism in the direct works operation and the housing departments. Does not he think that there is real concern about bias in expenditure between the constituencies of Monklands, West and Monklands, East? Is he aware that one councillor who endeavoured to expose all the wrongdoing in that council was wrongly accused of being involved in a criminal act but has now been exonerated and the allegations against him found to be totally false and fraudulent?
    Mr. Lang: I understand that the Comptroller of Audit is presently investigating to see whether there has been any improper use of public funds by Monklands district council. I am not aware of any evidence of any breach of any statutory obligation on the part of the council. Certainly the kind of charges to which my hon. Friend refers are serious. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said on Thursday:
    "It is a time of growing disillusion and increasing cynicism which if it continues unchecked will eventually corrode public confidence in our whole political system."
    The Labour party is right to set up its own in-depth inquiry, which I understand it has done, into the affairs of Monklands district council.

    BCCI
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on proposals to assist the local authorities that lost money in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
    Mr. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to a similar question on local authorities that lost money in BCCI from the hon. Gentleman on 18 November last.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister assure the House that if the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report, which is to be published in a fortnight, recommends the payment of compensation to Scottish local authorities and the other victims of BCCI, he will accept the recommendation and the Government will pay the compensation? Does he accept that as long as there is money left in this bank liquidators will be at the door? Will he join me in condemning the huge fees—£700,000 a week—currently being charged by Christopher Morris and Touche Ross to conduct the bank's liquidation? If that money had been given to the Scottish local authorities, every one of them would have been paid in full twice over. Will he draw that matter to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that, as always, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will read the report of our proceedings very carefully tomorrow morning.
    Let me emphasise again that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland granted Western Isles islands council consent to borrow £24 million, and granted Ross and Cromarty district council consent to borrow £1.8 million, to help the councils to cope with the losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Our response to any recommendations from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but no doubt the Government will, as always, take any recommendations from that Committee as seriously as we take recommendations from any Select Committee.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the drop in interest rates over the past year will be of considerable help to councils such as Western Isles? Does he agree that the interest rate reduction has injected many millions of pounds into the coffers of local authorities throughout
    308
    Scotland? [Interruption.] Should not those authorities be able to use the money to improve services, and to reduce council tax demands?
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree, and I am astonished that Opposition Members should jeer the good news for Scottish local authorities to which my hon. Friend refers. I should have expected them to welcome the news that authorities will now face lower interest rates.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced substantial reductions in interest rates. Our base rate is now the lowest in the European Community, and the lowest since 1977. There is no doubt that those reductions will be of immense benefit to public organisations that have borrowed, to the private sector and to the whole Scottish economy.
    Mr. Macdonald: I thank the Minister for adopting my suggestion last year that an inquiry should be held into the islands special needs allowance and for his decision at Christmas to implement the inquiry's findings. His action will go a considerable way towards meeting the special needs of the islands following the BCCI affair.
    The economic situation in the islands, however, is still difficult. Will the Minister give equivalent financial support to the ferry service across the Sound of Harris proposed by the islands council? Such projects will include the islands' economy, and provide much-needed jobs immediately.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition—[Interruption.] I am thanking the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of what we have done in response to his representations on behalf of his constituents.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister quite understood the reason for the interruption. A Back Bencher behind him was a reading a newspaper; that is what hon. Members were complaining about—the reading of a newspaper in the Chamber.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I cannot, of course, see what goes on behind my back. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We must make some progress.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider his point about ferry services very seriously.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I refer to the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). If the Select Committee report mentions compensation, as we hope it will—Ross and Cromarty was one of the afffected councils—will the Minister take a slightly more enlightened view of the word "compensation" than the Treasury might and allow the local authorities involved longer to plan their borrowing and expenditure in order to offset the immediate impact of the losses incurred as a result of the BCCI affair?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is asking a hypothetical question, although I am sure he will agree that I am one of the most enlightened of Ministers. Ross and Cromarty had £1.8 billion invested in BCCI, but it did not ask us for additional borrowing consent in that regard.

    Hazardous Materials (Emergencies)
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the ability of emergency services under his control to deal with any potential situation involving hazardous materials.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The emergency services are not under my right hon. Friend's direct control. In the light of inspection visits to police forces and fire brigades, HM inspectors of constabulary and fire services consider that these services handle incidents involving hazardous materials efficiently and effectively.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Minister aware of a recommendation made by the Select Committee on the Environment to ban the transport of radioactive material by air? Is he further aware that in the past 14 months, plutonium has been transported by air from Germany to Wick in containers that can withstand falls of only 27 ft? What action will the Minister and his right hon. Friend take to prevent such flights from passing over Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for alerting me to the problem. The Scottish Office has recently issued guidance on composite materials in burning aircraft. The issue was considered seriously at the time of Lockerbie because certain elements of the aircraft involved had radioactive particles. In co-operation with the Department of Transport, I should like to look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and come back to him in due course.
    Mr. Fabricant: Although I agree to some extent with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), may I urge the Minister not to involve himself in anything that might prevent trade between Scotland and other parts of the European Community?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have some of the most advanced scientists in the world dealing with the reprocessing of nuclear waste and they are able to use their expertise to make certain that extremely dangerous materials are processed with the maximum safety. People not only in Scotland but elsewhere in the world should benefit from their expertise and we should keep that thought very much in mind.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern felt by hon. Members who represent the Renfrewshire area over the emergency and ambulance services and how quickly they would be able to respond in the back shift to any serious accident? The people of Renfrewshire await an answer.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is for health boards to determine provision for any major emergency in their own area. They of course draw up contingency plans which are tested regularly and have been found to be highly effective. The hon. Gentleman asks how quickly ambulances could respond. I believe, very quickly indeed, although I shall mention the hon. Gentleman's interest to the Minister of State responsible for the health services in Scotland.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that following the Braer disaster there was widespread concern, not only
    310
    north of the border but all along the coastline of the United Kingdom, about the ability of the emergency services to respond to oil pollution? Will he reassure the House that there is no complacency among Ministers in dealing with oil disasters and that there are regular meetings between all the emergency departments and those responsible for dealing with oil pollution?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend's point is well taken. Exercises are, of course, held periodically, as should be the case. With regard to Shetland, the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit, the Shetland islands council and the emergency services all have contingency plans ready, and they are to be strongly commended on activating them so promptly. However, there will, of course, be lessons to be learnt from the results of the inquiry and, in due course, I hope to go to Shetland to follow up these matters.
    Mr. Wallace: I certainly endorse the commendation that the Minister has just given. Does he also agree that prevention is always better than cure? Therefore, it was a matter of considerable concern and dismay to read reports that, following the meeting last week of EC Environment and Transport Ministers attended by the Secretary of State, Britain has been described as one of the laggards in relation to taking action. When will the Government announce the interim measures promised by the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of marine surveillance pending the outcome of the Donaldson inquiry?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's impression of the discussion was not the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that prevention is very much better than cure. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's particular point about any interim arrangements that may be necessary.

    Nicotine Patches
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons nicotine patches are not prescribable in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: The position on nicotine patches is the same throughout the United Kingdom. One type of patch is not available on prescription under the NHS on the advice of the advisory committee on borderline substances. The product is now available on private prescription or over the counter from registered pharmacists. The committee is liaising with the manufacturers of two similar products so that they can be considered as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Wray: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland 34 per cent. of those aged 16 and over smoke, compared with 29 per cent. in England? Is he also aware that the death rate from lung cancer in Scotland is 28 per cent. higher for males and 36 per cent. higher for females than in England? That causes an horrendous cost in respect of hospitalisation and creates great strains on the health service budget.
    I understand that the nicotine patches cost £186 for a course, or £15 a week. I read in the press last week—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question?
    Mr. Wray: I was reading in the press last week that one can obtain those patches for £4 on a prescription south of the border, but they cost us plenty in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because some of the press reports have been misleading. The position is exactly the same north and south of the border. Specific advice on the prescribing of nicotine patches has not been issued. The House will agree with the first point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and I am certainly aware of the figures. That is why the Government have a policy of reducing smoking in Scotland in accordance with quite specific targets—to reduce the number of smokers aged 12 to 24 by 30 per cent. and those aged between 25 and 65 by 20 per cent. by the year 2000.
    Mrs. Fyfe: May I welcome the enforcement of the law announced this week against selling tobacco to anyone aged under 16 and the Minister of State's recognition that we need to reduce teenage smoking? Will the Minister therefore support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to control smoking in the workplace? Will he take the logical step and support our call for a ban on tobacco advertising? This week marks the 75th anniversary of women getting the vote. Clearly, we still have a long way to go. Women want sensible and effective legislation, not half measures. Will the Minister listen to women, or does he prefer to listen to the tobacco companies?
    Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Lady that I very often listen to women. I am grateful for the hon. Lady's first point. In relation to the workplace, I had a very useful meeting with the chief medical officer and employers' organisations to encourage greater attention to health promotion with particular emphasis on reducing smoking in the workplace. The CMO has had similar discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
    The hon. Lady will know that the Government have brought in at the United Kingdom level a new, tougher voluntary agreement with the industry on tobacco advertising. That agreement is now in force and it is the sensible way forward.

    Lanarkshire Economy
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the Lanarkshire economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The coming into operation two days ago of the Lanarkshire enterprise zone has been widely welcomed as the latest step in the Government's extensive programme of special help for Lanarkshire.
    Dr. Reid: I do not need to remind the Secretary of State of the continuing need for investment in Lanarkshire. We welcome the additional resources that were made available to Motherwell district, in particular for 1992–93, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that was before the closure of Ravenscraig, and there is a continuing need, particularly for infrastructural projects, especially the M8 upgrading and the M74 link. May I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the five-year plan developed by Motherwell district council for economic and commercial development?
    312
    I was at the Ravenscraig Burns supper on Friday night. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there were 500 people there, although Ravenscraig was closed, but less pleased to know that not one of them sent him their regards.
    Mr. Lang: Perhaps when I answer the hon. Gentleman's question they will wish to do so belatedly. The Government's commitment to upgrading the infrastructure of Lanarkshire is very marked and is readily demonstrated not only by what we have already announced but by what we plan. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the upgrading plans for the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse are making good progress, we are increasing the roads budget for Strathclyde regional council, totalling £7.4 million over the next two years, and we have also designated the enterprise zone which, on nine sites covering 500 acres, will provide very welcome attractions for incoming industry to Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by Hoover to concentrate all its European production at Cambuslang will have a beneficial knock-on effect in the economy of Lanarkshire? Does that not wholly vindicate our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's decision to push for an opt-out of the job-destroying social chapter?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, President Delors was right when he said that Britain, by opting out of the social chapter, was creating a paradise in this country for inward investment. Not only have we won those 400 jobs for Hoover, but we have had the announcement today of Direct Line Insurance creating 200 new jobs in Glasgow and of Escom UK Ltd. creating 140 new jobs in Ayrshire—and, of course, we had the recent announcement of 700 jobs at the Army personnel centre in Glasgow. A lot of good things are happening for jobs in Scotland.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is continuing confusion in Lanarkshire due to the lack of a strategy embracing the steel site, which is where the problem began and is the biggest area of derelict industrial land in Scotland? Mistakes are being made in planning and in capital programmes because there is no coherent development strategy. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the options are fully spelt out forthwith and taken into account by all the authorities concerned?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there is no coherent strategy. British Steel and Scottish Enterprise are working closely together on the problems of the steel site. It is not something on which there can be a quick fix; it has to be done gradually over time and at considerable cost. That is one reason why the enterprise zone that we have designated does not include part of that site. The £50 million of anticipated public expenditure costs associated with that site over the next decade can be under way as quickly as possible, with the attraction of new industry into the area.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On the serious issues in Lanarkshire, does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment has increased by 25 per cent. in that county in the past three years? Nothing that the Government have done on derelict sites, the failure to resuscitate Gartcosh or even the

    313
    proposals for rail privatisation will help those problems in the least. Given that when Ravenscraig closed, the Prime Minister said that he would not forget Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire still feels very much a forgotten county. What does the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to do about that?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman does not know, he should get out and go around his constituency. He would see on the ground evidence of all the work that the Government are doing. Lanarkshire development agency's budget next year will approach £50 million. The Government have encouraged the development of the Mossend rail terminal, which is of great importance to the future of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Although unemployment in Lanarkshire has risen by about 2,000 this year, the figure is still more than 15,000 lower than it was at the height of the previous recession in 1987.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers eligible for the hill livestock compensatory allowances there are within each district authority in the Strathclyde region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): My Department's records of hill livestock compensation allowance recipients are held by parishes and the former counties. The total for Strathclyde is 2,825 for the 1992 scheme.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland referring to the hill sheep subsidy which tells me, and I quote—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have to give a little guidance to the hon. Gentleman. Quoting during Question Time is not allowed. It would be helpful if he could simply summarise.
    Mr. Davidson: I received a letter from the Secretary of State saying that there should be rejoicing among the hill sheep farmers of my constituency. Can the Minister tell me how many hill sheep farmers he believes there are in Glasgow, Govan? Can he tell me whether the letter was seen by the Secretary of State or whether a blank piece of paper á la Kynoch was signed by the Minister and submitted by a civil servant, perhaps by one of the guilty people in the clock across there?
    The hill sheep farmers of Govan are the only people in Scotland I am aware of who support water privatisation. Will the Minister confirm that ewe after ewe is searching the hills of Govan—indeed, ewes are searching the whole of Scotland—seeking the green shoots of recovery but they cannot find them anywhere? Will the Minister confirm that sending that letter to me was an insult and that the section of the letter that tells me that larger numbers of people in Scotland on low incomes and no incomes have their incomes going down than have them going up is to be regretted, and will he consider resigning?
    Sir Hector Monro: What a pathetic choice of quote. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do better than that, it is a disgrace to his party. Surely he is glad to know the exact position of hill sheep farmers in Scotland. We all know
    314
    that it is a difficult place to make substantial profits—and of course there are sheep in Govan: I have seen them on football pitches and rugby pitches.
    Mr. Kynoch: On a more serious note which affects hill farmers in Scotland, will my hon. Friend say what he projects a net farm income in a less-favoured area hill farm with sheep and cattle will be in 1993–94 and how would that compare with the average net farm income in 1988–89? Does he not agree that from such a low level of income the small increase achieved through the HLCAs and sheep annual premium adjustments is only a beginning and a first move in the right direction, upwards?
    Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful for a sensible question from someone who knows something about hill farming. My hon. Friend realises that although we reduced the HLCA for sheep by £2.25, the sheep annual premium increased by £4.05, which represents a net change for the better of £1.80 and is certainly welcomed by hill sheep farmers in Scotland. I explained to the National Farmers Union last week that last year there was a 21 per cent. increase in income for less-favoured areas and 40 per cent. over the 1991 period. I am glad that the trend is in the right direction. I hope that with the substantial increase in the sheep annual premium this year, while maintaining the cattle amount of £63.30, incomes will continue to increase.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Under-Secretary of State knows that there are a great many sheep farmers in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. He will recall that when David Purdie, the president of the National Farmers Union in Ayrshire, came along with all the hon. Members from Ayrshire to see him, he indicated that there would be no reduction in the hill livestock compensatory allowance. Will the Minister admit that he was overruled by the Minister of Agriculture and that this means that £20 million is coming out of the rural economy of Scotland, which will be devastating for all the rural areas? If he is to be told what to do by the Minister of Agriculture, is it not time the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave up and let someone else take over?
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is always very enthusiastic on behalf of his farmers. He will be glad to know that the sector that is doing best in farming at the present time is dairying. He knows that the figures that I have given relative to the increase in the overall position of the sheep annual premium and the HLCA are very favourable. An amount of £29.50 for each ewe on a hill farm is very significant indeed, and I welcome this trend. I accept that farming started from a relatively low base over the past few years, but things are improving and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

    House Conditions Survey
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the results of his house conditions survey.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes, as the main contractor for the house conditions survey, hopes to complete the survey report before the summer recess. A final publication date has yet to be decided.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that the further delay in completing the report means an even greater and

    315
    disgraceful delay in tackling the bad housing problems in Scotland? Has he read the Shelter report, "Broken Dreams", on health and housing in Scotland? Does he realise that 100,000 children in Scotland now live in damp houses, which is affecting their health? Will he announce an emergency programme to tackle the problem?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In relation to the national house conditions survey, we are considering whether it would be helpful and feasible to release preliminary findings earlier, so that there will be no such delay as the hon. Gentleman suggests. With regard to condensation—[Interruption.] I should say dampness; I appreciate that there is a difference—councils should, as a matter of priority, tackle these matters within their mainstream allocations. I am glad that some 40 councils in Scotland have carried out local house condition surveys, which will enable them to target resources more effectively. Since 1979, some £10 billion has been allocated to public sector housing in Scotland.
    Mr. Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that municipal housing in Scotland is absolutely deplorable and that the architects and local government of Scotland have a lot to answer for? I have made many trips to Scotland, which I love. Does he agree with me that he ought to get the message across to local government and architects that good design does not cost any more than bad?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend has a good point. Some 257,000 houses have been built in Scotland. Of these, a proportion has been built by the public sector. Taking into account housing associations, as well as local authorities, some 66,000 new houses have been built in that time. If local authorities wish to build new houses where there is a perceived need for them to do so, they can put that in their housing plans and go forward, if they treat that as a matter of priority. My hon. Friend's point is valid.

    Water and Sewerage
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations were conducted prior to the announcement that he was ring-fencing section 94 capital consents for water and sewerage; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The decision to vary the terms of the consent that I give for local authority water and sewerage capital programmes was taken to ensure that resources continue to be targeted in the most effective way in the run-up to local government reorganisation and restructuring of water and sewerage services. It is consistent with the existing separate accounting arrangements for those services.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that Borders regional council, using consent scheme finance, has been able to direct £1.5 million from water and sewerage to other budgets in a way that was in no way detrimental to the water and sewerage scheme? That was permissible under the original rules of the scheme. Bringing in ring fencing nine months into the financial year has left the council in a difficult position by making that transfer of £1.5 million of capital consent illegal under the new rules. That will require the money to be clawed back in the fiscal year 1993–94 in a way which will occasion cuts
    316
    in capital consents of up to 19 per cent. in some of the budgets in the Borders. Will the Secretary of State look again at the summary introduction of those rules, find some way of easing the difficulties of Borders regional council, and try to make sure that it has some way of managing the problem occasioned by a summary change in the middle of the financial year?
    Mr. Lang: Yes, I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman. We made it clear when we introduced the arrangements that we would deal sympathetically with any genuine difficulties, having in mind precisely the kind of situation that the hon. Gentleman has described. My officials have been in touch with officials in Borders regional council. They have provisionally agreed a method of operation in relation to the enhancement or abatement of underspend and overspend which will enable Borders regional council to continue its other programmes without being unnecessarily restricted as a result of this.
    Mr. McAllion: The capital consents for water and sewerage in the current year amount to just over £221 million. Is the Secretary of State aware that if that level of spending were maintained for the next 10 years it would amount to less than half the sum that he himself has identified as necessary to meet European Community targets? Is it not, therefore, obvious that his mind is already made up to find the missing £2.5 billion by privatising Scottish water in one form or another? Will he therefore now give an unambiguous assurance that he will not seek to change the law of Scotland to allow disconnections of domestic consumers from the water and sewerage services? He should understand that if he does not give that commitment it will be he and not those who resist him who will be acting illegally in the eyes of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that capital expenditure on water and sewerage in Scotland has doubled over the past four years. He mentioned a figure for the current year; next year it will be £237 million, rising to £248 million a couple of years after. There is a continuing and developing need to increase capital spending on water and sewerage in Scotland to an estimated £5 billion in the next 10 to 15 years. Part of the consultation exercise that we have just concluded is to find the best way of raising those resources at minimum cost to the consumer.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend must believe that it is intolerable that hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in all parts of the House are not getting water and sewerage matters sorted out because of problems of public sector financing. Is not the sensible idea to move quickly towards a privatised water industry so that the investment can be made in water and sewerage services, as is happening in England and Wales?
    Mr. Lang: It is precisely to find the best way forward for water and sewerage in Scotland that I issued a consultation paper, and the consultation period has just ended. The purpose of the section 94 capital consent arrangements that we have announced is to ensure that capital continues to be expended on water and sewerage. There has been an average underspend of £3 million per year in the past few years, and it is plain that the heavy burden imposed by our

    317
    needs in the water and sewerage industry in the next few years must be met by resources being directed towards them.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the consultation a sham or is it for real? If the majority are opposed, will the minority Government in Scotland start listening to the Scottish people and abandon water privatisation in any shape or form? Or is the Conservative party also making democracy redundant under its current policies?
    Mr. Lang: Is the Scottish National party for real? We have consulted extensively and widely on a range of options for the future of water and sewerage in Scotland. We have received some 3,000 replies. We shall examine them with great care, analysing the recommendations made and the way in which they address the eight specific questions that we asked in the consultation paper, and then agree on a way forward.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: In the light of the Secretary of State's enthusiasm, expressed the other day, for local authorities raising private capital for a new bridge over the Forth, why does he exclude that principle for water and sewerage provision? Above all, will he for once answer the question about disconnections? Will he introduce legislation, or will he accept the overwhelming view of the Scottish people that privatisation of water and sewerage is totally unacceptable to us and ought to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Lang: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's last question many times. As to the question of the relationship between public and private sector expenditure, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read our consultation paper, he would have found a range of options of that sort laid out on which advice was requested. It is a great pity that the party that the hon. Gentleman leads in Scotland has behaved so irresponsibly as to ignore the important underlying issues which affect the future of water and sewerage. It has failed to submit positive and sensible forward-looking suggestions and, instead, has indulged in nothing but mindless rhetoric.

    Legal Aid
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from lawyers in Scotland with regard to fees charged for legal aid work; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on proposed reductions of legal aid in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have been informed of my right hon. Friend's intention that, to assist in overall control of public expenditure, no increase should be made in legal aid fees in Scotland in 1993. Both organisations have made representations against that proposal.
    My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the Government's proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for legal aid in Scotland from the Law Society of Scotland, consumer interests, solicitors firms, Members of Parliament and members of the public. Those representations are being carefully considered.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that his reply confirms the deep disquiet about the fact that the Government are proposing that anyone above income support level will be excluded from access to the law? Is it correct that people on invalidity benefit, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit will be excluded and that the sliding contributory scale will be scrapped? If so, who but the rich will be able to afford justice?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: People on income support levels of income will continue to receive free legal aid and advice and assistance. Eligibility will continue to be based on an individual's disposable income. When the issue was discussed in Standing Committee in 1989, I mentioned that the total figure for legal aid at that time was £54 million. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with characteristic directness, said:
    "That is a hell of a lot of money."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 19 April 1989, c. 4.]
    The sum has increased enormously since then.
    In 1991–92, the total figure for legal aid was £86 million. This year, it is expected to be about £104 million, and in the planned expenditure we have an anticipated increases in legal aid by a further 40 per cent. over the next three years. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the changes is to maintain free access to justice for the most needy while asking those who can afford it to pay more.
    Sir David Steel: Which of the Minister's figures apply to criminal legal aid and which to civil legal aid? Does he recognise that what the people in Scotland find most offensive about the proposed cuts is that they are being tacked on to the proposed cuts in England and Wales? The legal aid system in Scotland has proved most cost-effective because it is different and more efficient. Does the Minister accept the basic proposition that justice denied to ordinary people through cost is injustice and not justice at all?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because these measures do not extend to criminal legal aid in Scotland. It may be within his recollection that it was the late Willie Ross who tightened up the rules relating to criminal legal aid and took action to curb the rise in legal aid unless cases were of exceptional length or complexity. The current measures do not extend to criminal legal aid in Scotland.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I do not know whether I must declare an interest, but I do so. May I remind my hon. Friend that criminal legal aid was provided for in the 1959 Act and introduced into England, but was not introduced into Scotland until 1964 for absolutely specious reasons. The tort of legal aid is that it deprives all but the poorest and the richest from going to justice at all. These proposals will increase the number of people who cannot afford to go to justice and who will have to pay towards it if they do. Furthermore, in my brief forays into the English courts as counsel I have found that the English legal aid provisions are vast compared with the Scottish equivalent. What does my hon. Friend intend to do about that difference?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have to tell my hon. and learned Friend that those measures relate to civil legal aid. In the main he is a criminal lawyer, although on occasion he has dealt with civil cases. I stress that legal aid is estimated to have increased by 50 per cent. this year and

    319
    the aim is to take action to control the growth in legal aid expenditure, while ensuring the continuation of reasonable access to it for the most needy. The numerous representations that we have received are being carefully considered.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the finance required for the rise in civil legal aid assistance in no way compares with the rise in criminal legal aid assistance? Does he also acknowledge that the performance of the courts in recycling people due to inefficient and ineffective sentencing policies means that the same people are soaking up legal aid funds time and time again?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that legislation reflecting my hon. Friend's question—giving prosecutors a right of appeal against sentences that are too lenient—has gone through Parliament as a result of widespread support. That will help to avoid any need for recycling, as my hon. Friend puts it.
    Mr. McFall: Can the Minister honestly argue that it is consistent with the values of a civilised society that from 1 April no one earning more than £42.50 per week—the basic income support level—will be entitled to free legal advice and assistance? What does the Minister say to James Cowie—a registered blind person from Glasgow—who last year, through that scheme, was able to convince the courts to allow him access to his children in care? Will the Minister agree to meet James and myself to explain why James Cowie and up to a million other Scots will be denied invaluable assistance from 1 April? Does the Minister not agree that if justice means anything it means access to the courts?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am seeing the hon. Gentleman at an official meeting in a few minutes, so we can discuss arrangements then. On eligibility, I should make clear to him that we estimate that 45 to 55 per cent. of households would be eligible to civil legal aid, and that 20 to 30 per cent., would be free of contributions, which is a significant figure. A total allocation of about £104 million is to be spent on legal aid this year, which is also a substantial figure.

    Devolution
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to introduce devolution of decision taking in Scotland to the lowest possible level.
    Mr. Lang: I am glad to say that the policy of devolving decision making in Scotland to the lowest possible level, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is at the heart of the Government's approach. For example, the creation of local enterprise companies, national health service trusts, school boards and our proposals in the citizens charter and for local government reform are ample evidence of that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: None of those bodies is elected. Scots did not vote to be guinea pigs for rail privatisation, any more than they voted to be guinea pigs for the poll tax. Has the Secretary of State not noticed that what we have
    320
    been voting for—consistently, and by very large majorities, for 20 years—is control over our own affairs in Scotland? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for Ministers to plead for subsidiarity from Europe while denying Scotland's local and national democratic rights? Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the Prime Minister that any stock-taking exercise that fails to take account of those matters can only be described as fraudulent?
    Mr. Lang: I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to know that article 8b of the proposed new European Communities treaty refers specifically and exclusively to relations between the Community and individual member states and is not concerned with those states? internal affairs. For the past 20 years, and for a very long time before that, the people of this country have been voting for Members of this House and, thereby, electing a Government of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Salmond: If we are to believe the inspired press leaks about ?taking stock?, the Secretary of State will be styling himself as Scottish prime minister. Does he not believe that a real Prime Minister in a real Parliament should have a real mandate? The Secretary of State clearly has no such mandate. Does he think that the people of Scotland do not know the difference between a prime minister and a Westminster puppet on a string?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's speculation is entirely unfounded. I advise him to wait patiently as, in due course, the outcome of the stock-taking exercise will be made plain even to him.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to the people of Scotland it is a matter of grave concern indeed that, while the Labour party chunters on daily about a Scottish assembly sitting in Edinburgh, fewer than half the Scottish members of the parliamentary Labour party bothered to come up to Edinburgh for the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This says very little for the Labour party's commitment to Scotland.
    Mr. McLeish: Following the Prime Minister's patronising and pathetic remarks in Scotland at the weekend, can the Secretary of State indicate when the so-called stock-taking will end? Will he acknowledge that there can be no real substitute for decision-making powers in Scotland, exercised by a Scottish parliament? We do not want further debating opportunities; we want real decision-making power. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the most important stock-taking issue about which we want to hear from him is Rosyth naval dockyard? We want to hear that Rosyth will get the nuclear refit, securing jobs in Scotland and, in particular, in Fife.
    Mr. Lang: Conservative Members believe in devolution, but not devolution from one government to another government in Edinburgh. We believe in devolution from government to people. That is what imbues all our policies, and it is what the hon. Gentleman and his party ought to learn.

Army Manpower
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Army manpower.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) set out our plans for Britain's Army for the 1990s in June and July 1991. Those reflected the United Kingdom's leadership of, and substantial contribution to, the new Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, as well as the need to provide for the direct defence of the United Kingdom, our responsibilities in our dependent territories and elsewhere and our continued support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. He envisaged at that time that there would be some 116,000 regular personnel in the Army by the mid-1990s. That figure included some 12,000 personnel under training, giving a total trained strength of around 104,000.
Both he and I have repeatedly emphasised the importance we attach to ensuring that the armed forces are able to respond to the demands we place upon them. The requirement to allow sufficient leeway to deal with the unexpected was one of the major considerations underpinning the original work on ?Options for Change?. My predecessor and I have also made it clear that we shall keep the position under review and that, should we judge it necessary to look again at planned force levels and the balance between capabilities, we shall do so.
The judgments made in ?Options for Change? remain valid. The threat to our national security is much less than it was. Since 1991, however, there have been a number of developments which have added significantly to the commitments that the Army is required to meet at the same time as it is in the process of reorganising. Additional battalions have been deployed to Northern Ireland, and our overall contribution to United Nations peacekeeping tasks—in Cyprus, Cambodia, the former republic of Yugoslavia and elsewhere—has almost trebled.
The effect of these additional commitments, combined with the disruption caused by the restructuring and drawdown, is placing increasing pressure on individual soldiers and their families. This is something about which many hon. Members have understandably expressed concern. As planning for the Rapid Reaction Corps and other elements of the force structure has been taken forward, a number of requirements for additional manpower have also been identified.
Against that background, I have been considering for a number of months, with my military advisers, the need to adjust the force levels set out by my right hon. Friend. I have concluded that there is a case for an adjustment in the planned strength of the Army. I am therefore announcing today measures which, together with initiatives already in train, will make available 5,000 additional men and women for the front line units of the field Army.
First, I am announcing that the planned strength of the Army in the mid-1990s should be increased by 3,000 to 119,000. In determining how to use that additional manpower, I have been influenced by two considerations. The first is that it is desirable to bring up to strength a number of units which would otherwise have to be reinforced in order to undertake their peacetime operational commitments; a significant proportion of the additional manpower will be used for that purpose.
322
The second consideration is that the Government attach importance to increasing the emergency tour interval towards the target of 24 months, to which we remain committed. That can best be achieved by revising the number of battalions that will be available in future. I have decided therefore to permit the retention of two further infantry battalions. There will therefore now be a total of 40 battalions—including two Gurkha—in 1998, compared with the 38 previously planned. That will have the effect of increasing the average interval between emergency tours from 15 to 17 months this year and providing an additional margin above 24 months once restructuring is complete, which would make it easier to accommodate any further commitments.
I come now to how the two additional battalions which I have consulted the Chief of the General Staff and my other colleagues on the Army Board of the Defence Council. After considering all the reductions currently under way or planned, it is our unanimous view that the amalgamations of the Cheshire Regiment and the Staffordshire Regiment and of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers should not now proceed.
The funding for that additional manpower will be met from within the financial provision announced for defence in the November 1992 autumn statement. We are at present considering the consequences for the armed forces of the financial provision available. Today's announcement will make those decisions more difficult, but I am in no doubt that the need to increase Army manpower is the highest priority currently facing my Department.
This leads to the second area where extra manpower will be released. As well as the increase of 3,000 in the total size of the Army, the development of detailed plans for reorganisation, and the implementation of market testing and other initiatives aimed at improving efficiency should release approximately a further 2,000 personnel, mainly from the support area, over the next few years. Some of that manpower will be available for redeployment to field army units.
While it is important that the armed forces should be large enough to carry out the tasks required of them, manpower is a very expensive resource and I do not believe that it is sensible in terms of the overall defence programme and profile to view their size as permanently fixed. I will continue to keep the long-term strength of the Army under close review in the light of changing circumstances. Such circumstances will include any changes to current and foreseeable operational commitments, including the planned withdrawal from Hong Kong.
More generally, they will also include further progress with the Government's market testing and other initiatives, which should help us to reduce our requirement for service and civilian manpower across the programme. It is also important that senior commanders should have the flexibility to decide on the balance of manpower and other resources that they use to meet the objectives placed on them. Finally, following the publication last year of the open Government document on the future use of reserves, we have yet to complete our studies of how best to integrate both regular and volunteer reservists into the post-options force structure. That too will have implications for the long-term strength of the Regular Army.
In ?Options for Change?, we committed ourselves to an Army which is fully manned, properly supported, and well

323
equipped. The decisions I have announced today reflect that commitment. I have arrived at those decisions only after several months of consideration with my professional military advisers. It represents a small but sensible adjustment to the planned size of the Army, which will ensure that it has the flexibility and resilience that it needs to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.
Dr. David Clark: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, as one would the words of any sinner who repenteth. I welcome his admission that the armed forces of this country are over-stretched, but I suggest that this form of crisis management is not really the way to run an army. If the Government have got their sums wrong about the infantry, how can we trust them to have got the figures right overall?
The Secretary of State's announcement, long and complicated as it was, raised many issues of national concern—among them the key question, what is the extra cost of today?s announcement? The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to give us the precise figure, although he did make it clear that the cost had to come from within the defence budget. He also admitted that the results of these cuts would be ?difficult decisions ahead?. How can he come to the House to announce such cuts and speak of difficult decisions ahead when he has not yet worked out the consequences of the cuts for the other arms of our services? These strike us as panic measures.
Are we to understand that the Navy's budget is to be cut? Does that mean that the vital helicopter landing ship will not be built, in spite of Government reassurances to the contrary only last week? Or is it the turn of the RAF? Will this mean that the mid-term refits of essential aircraft will be delayed?
Will the Minister give the House a categorical guarantee that, as a result of this statement, no one serving under fire in Bosnia or Northern Ireland will be served with his redundancy notice while serving in those theatres?
I have mentioned Northern Ireland. May I press the Secretary of State on that? Will the emergency tours of four months be extended as a result of this statement, or will it be possible to reduce them to the four months originally envisaged? We have a right to know that.
Finally, what is the position of the service personnel due to be made redundant on 25 February?
Given the decision to replace the Army's Bedford trucks with DAF models, has today?s announcement that DAF Trucks is to be placed in the hands of administrators had any effect on the Army?s ability to do its job and move its personnel about?
Is not the Secretary of State?s statement merely an acknowledgement of the Government?s failure to have a national strategy for defence? Will he explain why, in the event of momentous strategic change—the end of the cold war—the Government have refused to implement a full-scale defence review? Will he now follow the advice of Field Marshal Lord Bramall and of the Select Committee on Defence, who have joined the Labour party in calling for such a review?
Does not today's statement merely confirm that ?Options for Change? was merely a response to Treasury diktats, not a policy to defend Britain and the free world?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's reference to repenting sinners comes well from a former member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament who now projects himself as the champion of the armed forces. Such remarks also come ill from representatives of a party which, at its last conference, once again called for a 25 per cent. reduction in the defence budget but which now seeks to chastise the Government.
Notwithstanding his pedigree, the hon. Gentleman asked a number of perfectly reasonable questions to which I shall now be happy to respond. He asked about the cost of today?s announcement. It will be about £80 million in a full year. That £80 million is a significant sum, but it should be put into perspective. It represents about one third of 1 per cent. of the defence budget. At the moment, we are involved, as we are every year at this stage, in reconciling the resources that have been provided as a result of the public expenditure round with the continuing programme of the Ministry of Defence. That programme has to be assessed annually. Today?s announcement has been included in that review and, in due course, we shall reach conclusions about any adjustments in the programme that will prove necessary.
I am aware of various press reports about individual procurement items and whether they affect one service or another. No decisions have been reached, nor do I anticipate any for some time on any of these matters. As I said in my statement, of course there will be difficult decisions. They would have been necessary irrespective of the statement, and that continues to be the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked about redundancies, and he must also put that in the proper perspective. As a result of ?Options for Change?, the overall size of the Army is coming down substantially from 156,000. That means an overall reduction before today?s announcement of some 40,000. Today's announcement could have some implications, but clearly they will not be profound, because of the factors to which I have referred. It is of course welcome that most of the redundancies that are likely to arise will be voluntary, and that the number of compulsory redundancies will be relatively small.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a defence review. I have said on numerous occasions that ?Option for Change? was itself a comprehensive assessment of the needs facing our armed forces. The assumptions of ?Options for Change? remain valid because of the way in which the international situation has developed. The adjustments that I have announced will make a useful contribution to relieving some of the pressures on our armed forces. They will be warmly welcomed, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming them.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that the Select Committee on Defence has been conducting a review of ?Options for Change? and that our report is due to be published on Tuesday. He will also be well aware that our conclusions were comprehensively leaked to ?News at Ten? last week and will therefore know that my Committee wished for substantially more than my right hon. and learned Friend has offered. None the less, I wholeheartedly welcome his statement and thank him for showing the flexibility of being prepared to move towards the level of manpower that our armed forces need. There is no doubt that his announcement will help in the critical stage that has been reached in the emergency tour plot and

325
will also help to flesh out the inadequate level of manpower in our existing battalions. The 580 strength that we have had until now was inadequate and adding to it will inestimably help the strength of our armed forces.
I have two questions for my right hon. and learned Friend. First, he was good enough to tell the House that he will remain flexible about further changes should the need arise. It is probably the feeling of the House that in future we may need to increase the level further if the requirements imposed upon us by the United Nations and the peacekeeping and intervention roles that we now play increase. Will he confirm that that matter will be kept under constant review?
Secondly, how will my right hon. and learned Friend assist the reprieved regiments to repair the damage that has already been done to their recruiting ability? What can be done to ensure that they can now recruit back up to strength as soon as possible?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Notwithstanding today?s announcement, I look forward to the publication of the Select Committee?s report so that we can study not only its general conclusions, but its detailed analysis of any specific points that it wishes to draw to our attention. I am sure that it will contain much that is worthy of serious consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that, as I said, we must remain flexible.
The whole point about ?Options for Change? is that it did not seek to implement its recommendations overnight. Quite deliberately and quite properly, there was to be a gradual implementation over several years, and that has given us the opportunity to monitor not only the implications for the armed forces, but the changing international scene that has led to my announcement.
Of course we all wish to take into account my hon. Friend's points about recruitment in the regions affected by today's announcement. We seek to ensure that it continues to be of a very high order, as it has traditionally been.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to the good will of the House following today's announcement. He will appreciate that the overstretch to which the Army has been subject has been paid for by serving soldiers themselves; today's announcement will come as some consolation to them.
The financial consequences for the armed forces as a whole, to which the Secretary of State referred in his statement, are rumoured to include the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Is it not now clear that we require a full-scale defence review in which we ascertain what our obligations are, or are likely to be, and then determine what military and financial resources are necessary to meet those obligations properly?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his initial comments. As for the wider issues, of course our armed forces will continue to have difficult problems to resolve as between resources and commitments—that is true around the world—but I believe that the fundamental assumption of ?Options for Change? remains unchallenged. It is no coincidence that, around the world, particularly in the western world, major reductions have been and continue to be implemented.
The United Kingdom still spends perhaps a higher proportion of its gross domestic product on defence
326
commitments than most countries. I make no apology for that, and a number of reasons could be cited. However, at a time when France, the United States, Germany and other countries—quite apart from the countries of the old Warsaw pact—are making major reductions in their defence budgets, it is right and proper for us to do the same, thereby releasing resources for other requirements. It is important to get the balance right, and I believe that the adjustment in manpower that I have announced will help us to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will be aware of the interest in the statement, which means that I cannot possibly call all the hon. Members who are rising. I appeal to hon. Members to ask the Secretary of State a single direct question, with no accompanying statement or preamble, so that he can reply as speedily as possible—which, with respect, I hope that he will do. There is a great deal of interest in the statement, and I want to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for putting his statement in context, and for confirming the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I always gave at the time of the announcement of ?Options for Change?—that we would keep the matter under review and, should circumstances require it, ensure that our forces were adjusted to meet current needs.
I consider the changes announced by my right hon. and learned Friend to be sensible, in the light of the new circumstances. I also recognise that the real extra pressure has resulted not from peacekeeping, but from the additional commitment to Northern Ireland. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to continue his discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that the resources applied to essential security work utilise our Army, the other armed forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Irish Regiment in the most sensible and cost-effective way?
Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to the great care that my right hon. Friend devoted to such matters when he was Secretary of State for Defence. He is right: we have a huge commitment in Northern Ireland. It is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we use our highly qualified, expensive military manpower in the best way possible to counter the terrorist threat, and to ensure that they work effectively in support of the civil power.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I support what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—said about the priority to be attached to the defeat of terrorism. Will the Secretary of State for Defence give an assurance that Her Majesty's forces will be used primarily for the defence of Her Majesty's subjects and the protection of British interests, and not for the recolonisation of territories from which Britain was forced to withdraw prematurely by critics at home and abroad who are now standing on their heads?
Mr. Rifkind: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the first obligation of Her Majesty's armed forces is the protection of United Kingdom territory and United

327
Kingdom citizens. Only when we are satisfied that we have discharged that obligation fully can we consider other commitments in other parts of the world.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I also welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. He talked about the difficulties in making certain decisions. Will he reassure the House that he attaches the utmost importance to maintaining the flexibility of our rapid reaction forces stationed in Europe—a flexibility which is so important to his strategy—by ensuring that the rapid reaction forces are kept up to the mark by having the most up-to-date equipment to discharge their responsibilities?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. The rapid reaction force is perhaps the single most important component of the new NATO force structure. It has a United Kingdom commander and, of course, it is important that it has the equipment to fulfil its responsibilities.
Mr. Bruce George: Your warning, Madam Speaker, and my elation at the saving of the Staffordshire and Cheshire Regiments inhibits me from gloating or saying, "I told you so," but I very much welcome the belated decision and thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor for being here to make it. However, does it not reflect badly on how decisions are made? First, there was the stupidity of making the decision in the first place, but the strength of our system is that stupidity can at least be rectified by the House, by a Select Committee and by public opinion. Will the Secretary of State try very hard to ensure that there is a little more far-sightedness in future, because the rationale that he gave for changing the decision was obvious to everyone 18 months ago, even before the decision was made?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair and uncharitable. If he thinks back two years, in 40 years the United Nations had agreed a further 14 overseas commitments, but in the past two years it has agreed a further 14. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman predicting that that would happen.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having just had a lunch engagement, quite by chance, with Major General Peter Martin and a senior representative of the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, may I tell my right hon. and learned Friend that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by the services, not least the Staffordshire and Cheshire Regiments? Will he accept that his announcement will go a long way to putting right the overstretch which has been one of the major problems facing the Army, not only the serving personnel but their families, and which sometimes leads to great distress, separation and divorce? He has given me and the House great reassurance that he listens to informed and constructive advice from colleagues and others on important matters.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to consider not only the political and geo-strategic issues but the human implications for individual soldiers who carry out considerable responsibilities on our behalf and sometimes at considerable risk to themselves. That is an obligation that we recognise.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome the announcement, or tactical retreat, as far as it goes, especially as it will secure the future of the first regiment of foot of the British Army, the Royal Scots. However, as it has taken 51 weeks for the Ministry of Defence to grasp that point set out in the latest Select Committee's report from February last year, would it be fair to say that the Secretary of State could not give a damn about military overstretch in the army but that what concerned him was the prospect of political overstretch when the Select Committee publishes its next report on Tuesday?
Mr. Rifkind: That is a very silly remark. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that I have said several times in the House that, if I ever became satisfied that there was unreasonable pressure on our service men and women, I would not hesitate to respond. That is what I have done.
Mr. Roger Knapman: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his encouraging and realistic statement, but please will he reconsider the proposals to amalgamate the Glorious Gloucesters, who are shortly to celebrate their tercentenary of wonderful service from the Nile to Korea, and especially during the two world wars? If my right hon. and learned Friend is really to be a flexible friend, will he please save the Gloucesters?
Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to the remarkable traditions and achievements of the Gloucesters, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to them. It is always difficult and painful when the Army Board has to make such judgments. It has taken into account all the proper considerations and reached a unanimous conclusion. However, I appreciate that, inevitably, it cannot please everyone.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I congratulate the Secretary of State on at last agreeing with the view which I have expressed since I became a Member of the House and which was expressed by the Labour party throughout the election campaign and before it. Serving soldiers of the Cheshire Regiment and their families will welcome today's statement, particularly in relation to soldiers serving in Bosnia.
I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State recognises that issues of family stress are involved in the current structure of the armed forces. Will he therefore continue to ensure that family stress issues are properly addressed? Will he help that process by answering my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and confirm that there will be no redundancies among the Cheshires serving in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no intention of making an announcement today about that matter. It is a very difficult, sensitive and important issue. I intend to be fair to the armed forces as a whole and not to comment on the implications for any one regiment. While I welcome the congratulations of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) in respect of the statement, I am bound to add that, given the apparent unanimity of Labour Members in favour of defence expenditure, it is a pity that they cannot persuade their party conference to agree with them.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be great rejoicing in

329
Staffordshire at the reprieve of the Staffordshire Regiment? Will he bear in mind that the Staffordshire Regiment fought a tremendous battle in the Gulf and that the Cheshires are fighting such a battle in Bosnia? Those of us in Staffordshire and Cheshire congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his flexibility, and we trust that the resilience that we have shown in the light of adverse circumstances in battling for the Staffordshires and Cheshires will be borne in mind on the other side of the fence.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The statement is welcome as far as it goes, but does the Secretary of State understand that it is very difficult for those of us representing northern seats, in Scotland, to understand why the amalgamation of the Gordons and the Queen's Own Highlanders is to go ahead, particularly when a platoon of the Gordons is being sent to Bosnia? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain very simply what criteria were applied when deciding which amalgamations would proceed and which would not?
Mr. Rifkind: I obviously pay the same tribute to the Gordons and to the Queen's Own Highlanders that I paid to other regiments a few moments ago. The criteria applied by the Army Board were the same criteria that were applied two years ago. The hon. Lady will recall that my predecessor declined—I believe correctly—to comment on the details of the criteria. These are very difficult matters, and I believe that it is appropriate to say simply that the Army Board took into account all the relevant criteria and the considerations that were before the board two years ago and came to what would inevitably be a difficult judgment.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I heartily congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a statement which was full of thoroughly sound common sense. It goes some way to reassuring those of us who have been long-time critics of the mathematics of "Options for Change".
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that it makes sense in the next phase of the review of the levels of forces to look to 1997 when we are to withdraw from Hong Kong? Will he also keep the special problems of the Household Division under further and continuing review?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. Of course it is important to remain flexible over the next few years. As we have seen over the past few years, unforeseen circumstances inevitably arise—some of which will lead to a reduction in our need for manpower while others may lead to an increase. I appreciate that the Household Division has particular responsibilities because of its ceremonial duties. Clearly, that must be taken into account when determining its manpower requirements.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that his decision in respect of the Cheshires will be greatly welcomed in my constituency, where recruitment is quite strong? The decision taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor in respect of the Royal Welch Fusiliers was very well received. The Secretary of State might agree that the Royal Welch Fusiliers is one of the finest regiments in Britain.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement is most warmly welcomed, especially his announced reprieve for the Cheshire Regiment, which is very much in people's minds at the moment, being in the front line in Bosnia? His statement will be greatly welcomed by my constituents in Greater Manchester and Cheshire. Furthermore, does he accept that, as he has said, it is but a modest step in the right direction? Significant overstretch will remain in the Army. Will he make a further step should, in his judgment, the situation require it?
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our armed forces will always be under pressure; it is the nature of armed forces and the nature of the work that they do. A judgment constantly has to be made as to what is the unacceptable level of pressure. I believe that the degree to which international events have required the United Kingdom to make a useful and important contribution justify the consideration that we have given to these matters and the decision that we announced today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.[Interruption.] Order. There will be other opportunities.

Points of Order
4 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to page 119 of ?Erskine May?, which states that deliberately misleading the House may constitute contempt. At column 142 of yesterday's Hansard, the President of the Board of Trade claimed that there was not "one shred of evidence" that the minority of the banking consortium which had asked for delay in the rescue of DAF were British banks. It has today been confirmed, particularly by the Financial Times, that the minority were indeed three British banks—NatWest, Barclays and Lloyds.
I would not wish to believe that the President set out deliberately to mislead the House, and I am willing to accept that he was badly informed. However, the House has been misled about the contribution of British banks to the collapse of DAF. I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, to confirm that there is precedent for a Minister of the Crown who discovers that he, perhaps in good faith, has misled the House to make a statement to correct the record.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time.
As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the House will appreciate, that is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has put a direct question to me. The answer is that, if a Minister wishes to make a further statement to the House, it is up to that Minister to seek an opportunity so to do.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter; I have dealt with it.
Mr. David Willetts: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to yesterday's Hansard and its account of the debate on rail privatisation? No fewer than three Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North(Mr.Wilson)—criticised me by name because of a paper that I published on deregulation. They even alleged that I was an intellectual—and if that is not an unparliamentary term, it should be.
None of those three Opposition Members chose to inform me in advance that he intended to criticise me by name and therefore did not give me an opportunity to intervene to correct their caricatures of my argument. Will you explain, Madam Speaker, why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, on that one occasion, lacked the courtesy and delicacy for which he is so well known?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps this is an opportunity for me to let the House know that, whenever an hon. Member intends to refer to another hon. Member in terms which call for a response, that hon. Member should of course be informed. But that does not mean that every passing reference or straightforward disagreement, of which there are quite a number in the House, on matters of policy call for notification. It has been left to the good sense of the
332
House to maintain the conventional decencies which are the necessary foundation of our sometimes rather robust proceedings.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me remind you of the debate on sending the task force to the Falklands. A dissenting voice was not heard—it was not called by Mr. Speaker, even though there was dissent in the House, as has subsequently become known. During the statement by the Secretary of state for Defence today, you, Madam Speaker, did not call one dissenting voice. I rose as a dissenting voice, and some of my colleagues did as well. Surely the role of the Speaker is to ensure that all shades of opinion are heard in the House. I ask you, to reflect on that point.
Madam Speaker: Of course I will. I am not to know where the dissenting voices will come from, although I sometimes guess where they might come from. Some hon. Members approach me when they know a statement is to be made, and that is always appreciated. I cannot always accommodate them, and I do not give commitments, but I try my best, and in future I shall certainly remember what the hon. Gentleman has said to me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier you heard from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about the President of the Board of Trade. I shall not go over that again, because you have already dealt with it, but would it not be advisable, when Ministers come to make statements to the House, if the Chair could be absolutely sure that they would get the thing right? The President of the Board of Trade got it wrong over the pits, he was not even informed about the lowering of interest rates, and he got caught out on the wireless. Yesterday he came here again without being informed. It is wasting your time, Madam Speaker, and that of the House. Just check with him next time he opens his gills.
Madam Speaker: I spend a lot of my time listening to the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Alan Williams: May I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the guidance that you have just given the House in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—and let me assure you that there are no circumstances in which I would ever refer to him as an intellectual. It honestly did not occur to me that, in a debate such as yesterday's on the future of railway services, an hon. Member who felt that his constituents should be denied the safety facilities that could be introduced would not be here to defend that argument.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not having yesterday's debate prolonged.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was in the Chamber last night? Will you confirm that it is not the responsibility of hon. Members to check on whether another hon. Member has left before the closing speeches? Will you further confirm—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have got the point. All hon. Members who are interested in a debate and have taken part in it should come back to hear the closing speeches. It is a matter of courtesy.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, during Scottish questions, you reprimanded an hon. Gentleman for reading a newspaper. I am afraid that that was me, and I want to apologise for that. The reason was that I had spotted a headline which said, ?Council in disgrace?, and I wanted to know which council it was—
Madam Speaker: Order. I saw enough of the hon. Gentleman during Question Time. I think that he hoped that the television cameras were on him; I can assure him that they were not.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you be prepared to consider adjourning the House so that the Leader of the House might propose a period in which we could debate the defence statement we have just heard so that the position of the Labour party could be put, as that was not mentioned in questions on the statement which announced a further 25 per cent. cut in the military budget?
Madam Speaker: Of course I would not consider adjourning the House, but I remind hon. Members, if they need reminding, that there are business questions on Thursday, when questions can be put to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State has, I am sure inadvertently, misled the House, or at least partially misled the House, in the statement that he has just made and I wonder whether you can advise me on how the matter can best be rectified. He said that he intends to spend an extra £80 million from a fixed budget, but he has not told the House from where that money is to come. You will be aware that there is widespread concern, not least on Tyneside where the future of the shipbuilding programme is of vital importance—
Madam Speaker: Order. That was a very good try on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who I know was standing during the statement seeking to be called. He must not try to put that one over on me.
Mr. Barry Jones: Yesterday, in answer to question 7, the Secretary of State for Education made an inaccurate series of references to me and I thought that in subsequent supplementaries he used the words, "I apologise". However, nowhere in my scrutiny of Hansard can I see those words. I wonder whether it is your recollection that he used those words. May I also say, to help progress, that I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's personal attack on me was made in good faith.
Madam Speaker: I know that the Minister concerned did apologise to the hon. Gentleman, and it has been brought to the attention of the Editor. Perhaps we might now make some progress with the day?s business.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 01(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  FISH POLLUTION
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) (No. 2) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 143) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) (Matter relating exclusively to Wales),
WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

  UNEMPLOYMENT (WALES)
  That the Matter of unemployment in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) (Matter relating exclusively to Wales),

  STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT (WALES)
  That the Matter of the structure of government in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

Widowed Father's Allowance
4.15 pm
Mrs. Judith Chaplin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply the National Insurance Fund to provide an allowance for widowed fathers with dependent children equal to that provided for widowed mothers with dependent children.
This is a Bill about equality, fairness and the importance of family life. I am sure, therefore, that it will commend itself to all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
When the national insurance system was introduced in 1948, following the Beveridge report of 1942, the majority of married women stayed in their homes. Indeed, the Beveridge report was drawn up on the explicit assumption that wives were financially dependent upon their husbands and should receive benefits based on their husbands' contribution records.
Many women, of course, still choose to stay in their home when their children are young, and I am sure that most hon. Members believe that they have a right to do so. If that is the case, if the husband dies and the principal source of income is lost, it is right that the widow should receive a replacement income based on her husband's contribution to the national insurance fund. Widows with children receive such an allowance—the widowed mother's allowance—£54.15 a week, with additions for each dependent child, based on the husband's contribution.
Fifty years on from the publication of the Beveridge report, we need to look again at whether the assumptions in that report are still appropriate and whether the benefits on which those assumptions are based give an equitable system. Circumstances have changed radically. In those days, fathers were not expected to look after their children and, if the mother died, would obtain paid help or help from family or friends, or the children might be put in care.
Nowadays, many fathers—indeed, I hope many fathers in the House—are perfectly capable of looking after their own children, and play a full role in bringing them up. In some cases, parents have chosen to reverse their roles, with the woman being the main breadwinner and the man staying at home to look after the children. If a wife dies, the man may well wish to stay at home to ensure that one parent, at least, can have a full-time role in bringing up the children.
In these circumstances, however, there is currently no help from the state through the national insurance fund. Despite the fact that it is the man's contribution to national insurance that qualifies his widow to receive widowed mother's allowance, that contribution by him does not secure benefit which would enable him to stay at home. Nor can he receive other contributory benefits, for he is disqualified for unemployment benefit because, by definition, he is not available for work. He may, of course, be eligible for income support if his savings fall below a certain level, but that does not compensate him for not receiving a contributory benefit to which he should be entitled through his contribution record.
I therefore believe that a widowed father's benefit should be introduced to enable widowers to stay at home to look after their young children, if that is what they choose to do.
336
In recent years there has been discussion of the need for the equalisation of survivor's benefit. In 1989, the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee recommended that men and women should be provided with survivor's benefit on the same terms, but that a substantial period should be allowed to introduce this. The Committee feared that compulsory equality immediately might deprive widows of benefits they still need because of their different position in society.
I do not believe that there should be total equality of survivor's benefit. A widow can receive a widow's pension if she is aged 45 or more when her husband dies. This is in recognition of the difficulty that she may find in re-establishing herself in the labour market if throughout her married life she has not worked outside the home. Such a benefit would not be necessary for a man, who would be more likely to have been in full-time work previously, and would be able to return to work when his children no longer needed his full-time care.
Nor does it seem necessary to have the same conditions for the widowed father's allowance as currently apply to the widowed mother's allowance. A widowed mother's allowance continues to be paid based on her late husband's contributions, regardless of her own earnings if she returns to work. It is taxable, but it is not withdrawn while she has dependent children. Since the main feature of our social security system is that it is a social insurance against the interruption and destruction of earning power, it is perhaps odd that a widow can both earn and receive this benefit. It is because it is based on her husband's contributions, and perhaps we should look again at the circumstances there.
Certainly any widowed father's allowance should be designated to compensate for loss of earnings while the father is not employed outside the home, and should cease when he returns to full-time work. That would substantially reduce the cost of such an allowance, recently estimated at some £90 million a year. If it was given only to those fathers who chose to stay at home on the death of their wives to look after their children, as is the case with one of my constituents, and ceased when they returned to full-time work, the cost would be relatively small.
Its value to the family, however, would be immense. It would ensure that the best care was available for children who had already suffered a tragic loss and who would benefit greatly from the full-time care of their fathers. The number who choose to do this may not be large, but, in all fairness, they should receive a benefit equal to that of widows in similar circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Judith Chaplin, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Lady Olga Maitland, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and Mrs. Marion Roe.

Widowed Father's Allowance
  WIDOWED FATHER'S ALLOWANCE
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin accordingly presented a Bill to apply the National Insurance Fund to provide an allowance for widowed fathers with dependent children equal to that provided for widowed mothers with dependent children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Local Government Finance (England)
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 422), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the Special Grant Report (No. 5) (House of Commons Paper No. 423), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 424), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) (Amendment) Report (England) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 443), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
Mr. Howard: The four reports, taken together, embody the local government finance settlement for the coming year. They represent the culmination of a long process which began a full 12 months ago. During that time, the Government have held extensive discussions with the local authorities and their associations about the cost of local government services. We have examined at length the methodology and formulae for standard spending assessments. We have also developed a method for calculating each authority's tax base for the new council tax.
Last November, in the light of those discussions, I announced my proposals for the coming year. I made proposals for the total provision for spending and grant, and the methodology for SSAs. I also made proposals for the relevant notional amounts which will be used as the basis for determining whether the increases in authorities' budgets should be capped.
Since then, we have gone through a further formal consultation process with local authorities. We have received 400 letters about the settlement and a further 250 about notional amounts. We have also held 90 meetings with local authorities and hon. Members. We have carefully considered everything that we have heard, and my decisions—in the light of all of this—are set out in these reports. My aim has been to satisfy myself that the settlement which I have proposed is appropriate and realistic, and that the legitimate concerns of local government are taken into account.
We are planning for local government to spend a total of £412 billion next year. That is £1.2 billion more—an increase of 3.1 per cent.—over the provision that we made for the current year, after adjusting for changes in local authorities' functions. We are providing £33.5 billion—an increase of £1.2 billion, which is 3.7 per cent. on the same comparative basis—in Government support. Against a background of inflation at 2.6 per cent. and falling, and with a public sector pay policy limiting increases to a range between zero and 1.5 per cent., that is an eminently realistic settlement.
I suspect that we shall hear ritual protests from Opposition Members that the settlement is inadequate. When they make those protests, I hope that they will tell
338
us how they would finance the additional amounts which they doubtless say they would make available. Perhaps they would increase income tax. Perhaps it will be another penny on the standard rate to deliver an extra £1.5 billion of spending. Perhaps they would have higher council taxes. Every extra £1 billion of spending would mean another £60 on the band D council tax. I invite the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) to give us his prescription. Which of the two prescriptions does he recommend?
Mr. Eric Illsley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, within the funding available, the difference between the authorities should be reduced? Why does my authority have 70 per cent. less than Manchester, for example, to provide the same level of service? Surely, within the total amount of funding available, there can be a more equitable distribution.
Mr. Howard: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is to be found in the reports which I have referred to and which are available in the Library and the Vote Office. They set out in some detail the methodology which leads to the results which form the basis of the report. If the hon. Gentleman restrains himself for a moment, he will hear even more about how we propose to deal with those matters not only in 1993 but in future.
I give the hon. Gentleman credit at least for saying that he was protesting not about the overall level of the settlement but about the distribution. I hope that no one will participate in any protest against the adequacy of the settlement as a whole without telling us in detail how they would raise the extra money they want.
I have one prescription to offer. All local authorities need to ensure that they make the best possible use of their money. Over the past week or two, we have become all too well aware of just how badly several local authorities are short changing the people whom they were elected to serve. Some of the stories of incompetence and mismanagement are truly dreadful, and time and time again Labour councils are seen to be responsible.
Eighteen of the top 20 community charges this year were set by Labour councils. Seventeen of the 20 councils with the worst community charge collection records are Labour councils. That is little wonder when they have councillors such as the three in Lambeth who owe £3,000 themselves, despite collecting £35,000 in allowances for the year in question.
Examples are legion. For example, Sheffield proposes to spend £54,000 on offices for hon. Members opposite, when it has just lost more than £10 million on the world student games.
Mr. Clive Betts rose—
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman rises to the bait.
Mr. Betts: Has the Secretary of State read in the Local Government Chronicle of the survey carried out on behalf of the Local Government Management Board, which showed that chief executives of all local authorities throughout the country have named Sheffield as one of the 16 best-managed local authorities in the country? Sheffield has shown that it is an efficient local authority. Other authorities such as Birmingham, Bradford and Islington are included, but not Wandsworth or Westminster. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take account of those findings in what he says about Sheffield in the future.
Mr. Howard: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who led Sheffield council when it lost the £10 million on the world student games, has the temerity to rise on such matters. I suppose that the best way to describe the study to which he referred is to say that it is little more than a "straw survey". It is totally unrepresentative.
Mr. Illsley: I apologise for rising on a point of order so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Secretary of State could have misled the House by saying that Sheffield made available finances for "hon. Members opposite". If he checks, I think that he will find that Sheffield makes available finance for hon. Members from both sides of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Whether or not that is correct, it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Howard: Not only was it not a point of order—it was not accurate. We have canvassed that matter at length, and the hon. Gentleman is a wee bit behind the game.
I was about to mention Monklands, which is represented in this House by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, who has maintained a studious silence over the serious allegations about Monklands council contained in the Sunday Times recently.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is making a statement about the rate support grant settlement for England. He should stick to that and give Opposition Members an opportunity to question him about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair normally allows a certain latitude, but that has been considerably extended. Perhaps the Secretary of State would return to the main subject of debate.
Mr. Howard: Of course—that is exactly what I shall do. It is understandable that Opposition Members should be so touchy about such matters; we quite understand.
I do not intend to predict levels of council tax, but I note in passing that others have not been so coy. The Local Government Chronicle conducted an independent survey of local authorities at the start of the year, which predicted an average tax payable of £505—far less than some of the scare stories bandied about by Opposition Members. What is more interesting, it concluded:
"Labour councils cost you more."
It found that an average Labour band D council tax was nearly 20 per cent. higher than the comparative figure for Conservative councils.
Surely it is significant that, on that evidence, Labour-controlled councils will charge on average nearly £100 more council tax than Conservative-controlled councils, and that Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities will charge nearly £50 more. Time and time again, we find that Labour councils cost more and give little but waste and inefficiency in return.
Mr. Betts rose—
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howard: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has already made one intervention, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Riddick: Is it not the case that one reason why council tax bills will be higher in Labour authorities this year is that last year many Labour authorities grossly overspent, in the hope and expectation that an incoming Labour Government would bail them out? Is it not the case that the chickens of Labour's incompetence and profligacy are coming home to roost?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That was the attitude taken by many councils controlled by the Labour party. The sadness is that those people whom they were elected to serve are having to pay the cost of their profligacy because of those expectations.
The settlement is designed to ensure that the burden on local tax payers can be held down to fair and reasonable levels. Overall there should be no need for councils to raise any more in real terms in the coming year from their local tax payers than they have budgeted to raise this year, but clearly it will help if one lives in a Conservative-controlled authority.
Of course, the introduction of the council tax will mean some differences in the burden on individual households. I understand the concern which many hon. Members have expressed on that score. We have therefore provided for a scheme of transitional relief to give protection to any household which would otherwise face an excessive increase in its local tax bill. I estimate that the scheme will cost about £340 million in the coming year.
Our grant scheme is designed to ensure that different authorities, however different their circumstances, are able to deliver the same standard of service for broadly the same level of council tax. The function of standard spending assessments is to measure the differences between authorities, so that those differences can be properly reflected in the grant that they receive.
With that system, it is inevitable that many authorities will feel that their particular circumstances are not being properly reflected. In other words, they want a larger share of the cake, and they are not short of good arguments why they deserve more. But there are more than 400 local authorities in England—excluding parishes—from Cornwall to Northumberland, taking in London, the metropolitan boroughs, the districts, the joint police and fire authorities, each with their own individual characteristics and their own, often very divergent, views. When I came to make my proposals for standard spending assessments, last November, I knew in advance that I could not satisfy everyone.
But the world does not stand still. In the coming year, there will be changes in authorities? functions and a change in the method of local taxation. New sources of data, such as the 1991 census, have become available, and other sources of data have also changed. My proposals for the coming year will ensure that all these changes are properly reflected in standing spending assessments.
Sir Anthony Grant: I am very glad to hear that my right hon. and learned Friend will take a flexible view in the forthcoming year. While I support entirely his tight control of local government expenditure, I have to say that the area cost adjustment factor is very unfair. This militates very much against certain counties, to the benefit of others. It is quite ridiculous that Cambridgeshire does not benefit, whereas Bedfordshire, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire do. This creates great ill feeling. I do not believe that it can be

341
rectified by the Association of County Councils, as all councils have vested interests; the Government themselves will have to do something. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will look at this grievance in the forthcoming year.
Mr. Howard: I understand very well the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. Indeed, it has been expressed to me very often by several of my hon. Friends. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, and I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he has asked. We shall certainly look very carefully indeed at this matter.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: It appears that, over the past three years, the amount of grant allocated to the area cost adjustment has increased from £837 million to £1,314 million, despite the fact that the differential in cost increases—for instance, between Greater London, where the area cost adjustment has meant the standard spending assessment's having gone up most, and the west midlands, where the increase has been far smaller—has lessened continuously. The spending authority in Hereford and Worcester is very frugal. Indeed, its spending used to be under the standard spending assessment. It is wrong that its assessment should increase by only 2.5 per cent., whereas the figure for East Sussex is 7 per cent., and the one for Hampshire 5 per cent.
Mr. Howard: The point that my hon. Friend has made reinforces one that was made a few moments ago. I shall certainly look at those factors, amongst others, when I come to consider the way in which the standard spending assessments for next year are to be constructed.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I do not want to labour this point, but I have to say that there are other data of particular local significance, which my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and I, as well as local authority representatives, have sought to bring to the Secretary of State's attention. I refer to the data concerning the inflow of refugee children to Heathrow airport, which is in our borough. It has been costing the borough about £1 million a year to look after these children, and the cost will probably be greater in the future. What help can my right hon. and learned Friend give us towards carrying this burden?
Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend restrains himself for a few minutes, he will find that I have some comfort for him.
Mr. Giles Radice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has just come into the House, so he will have to wait a while.
Many councils have come to me and my colleagues with arguments for further changes. I have considered everything they have said—often, I am bound to say, in direct opposition to one another—but, on balance, I have not been convinced that I should make any further changes for the coming year. Accordingly, the SSA methodology as set out in the local government finance report is unchanged from the proposals I made for consultation.
However, as a result of more recent data becoming available, there have been some changes since the start of consultation on the SSAs for individual authorities. I have placed copies of a set of tables, listing the SSAs far all
342
authorities, in the Library and the Vote Office, alongside the settlement reports, and my Department has written to councils individually with full details of all the calculations in each case.
I know—it has been made clear by some of today's interventions—that many hon. Members still regard the standard spending assessments with the deepest suspicion. Of course the formula is complicated—local government is complicated. It performs a wide range of functions against widely differing backgrounds and circumstances. We have to have a system which reflects those differences in the distribution of grant. I hope that all hon. Members will at least agree that some sort of formula-based distribution is inevitable. However, I know that many hon. Members feel keenly on behalf of their local authorities. I know that they will be keenly disappointed that I have decided not to make the changes which they have pressed me to make.
I am acutely aware of their concerns. Over the next year, my Department will be working on the findings of the 1991 census and how best to incorporate them into the SSA formula. I intend to take that opportunity to look again at some of the more fundamental issues that have been raised with us this year, including the area cost adjustment, which was mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. Hon. Members and local authorities who have not been able to persuade me to their point of view this year will, I am sure, want to take advantage of the opportunity which this will give them to exercise their powers of persuasion again next year.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does not the Secretary of State realise that, despite what he has said, the fact that he plans to revisit the formulas next year fills local authorities up and down the land with trepidation? The Government introduced the area cost adjustment in order to doctor the figures. What scheme will the Secretary of State come up with next to doctor the figures again? Does he realise that he has brought the entire system and Government into total disrepute?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he does not want me to revisit those matters next year, it can only be because he is entirely satisfied with the money that Coventry has received this year. If he is prepared to say how thankful he is for the amount of money that we have been able to make available to Coventry this year, I shall be happy to give way to him again. If he is complaining about the amount of money that Coventry has received this year, I should have thought that he would be delighted that I intend to revisit those matters next year.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in respect of the SSA and the relative poverty and deprivation of local authority districts, the Government still intend to use the all-ages social index? That index shows Cheltenham as poorer than Rotherham, Tunbridge Wells as poorer than Doncaster, Gloucester as poorer than North Tyneside, and Basildon as poorer than Bolsover. How can there be any confidence in a system of local government finance that is so fundamentally flawed
Mr. Howard: I shall certainly not go into detail on the sort of settlement that we may see next year. The hon. Gentleman knows, from the reports, the basis on which we have reached our conclusions this year.

343
I have sought this year to be as helpful as I can to local authorities on another matter. As in previous years, councils may be designated for capping if they increase their budgets by more than certain amounts and in doing so set budgets which exceed their SSAs. However, in a year when local authority functions are changing, and when a new system of local taxation is being introduced, it is not appropriate to use councils' actual budgets for 1992–93 as the starting-point for capping. Those budgets need to be adjusted so that the changes in functions, and in the local government finance system, can be allowed for in the capping calculations. The relevant notional amounts, which are set out in the report, are in effect adjusted budgets for individual councils.
These notional amounts relate directly to the real budgets set by authorities for the current year. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the authorities are fully involved in the process. When I announced my proposals for notional amounts last November, I also made it clear that we would listen carefully to the views of individual authorities on the figures that we had calculated for them, and on the methodology in general.
We have had many representations on both counts. I could not say that we have done exactly what every council wanted us to do. In particular, we have had to remain true to our original purpose, which was to adjust the budgets made by authorities when they set their community charges for the current year, and not to reflect changes that they may have made in the course of the year. But, as a result of our consultations, we have made changes both in the methodology and in the calculation of notional amounts for many individual councils.
As a result, the aggregate of notional amounts is now £250 million higher than we originally proposed, and for many councils the effect will be directly to permit a higher budget in 1993–94 without the fear of capping. I know that councils have welcomed our willingness to listen to them, and I hope that the House will today endorse that welcome.
Notional amounts are a demonstration of my commitment to use my capping powers in a way which is fair both to local authorities and to their local taxpayers. It was for that reason that, in my statement to the House last November, I set out the capping criteria that I had in mind to apply for the coming year.
I reaffirm that those are the criteria which I intend to apply. I shall not detain the House by reading them out in full, but I shall remind hon. Members of the broad principles: first, that budget increases—increases over the notional amount—may be subject to capping if the resulting budget exceeds the authority's standard spending assessment; secondly, that a budget is excessive in absolute terms if it is more than 12.5 per cent. above the SSA; and thirdly, that, notwithstanding the 12.5 per cent. criterion, an authority may not be designated if it sets a budget which represents a cash freeze or, in certain circumstances, a minimum cash reduction on the notional amount.
The significance of my announcement last November was that it gave authorities advance warning of what they had to do in order to avoid being designated for capping. I am pleased to say that the great majority of those who have written to us, or come to meet us, during the
344
consultation process have accepted that discipline. I hope that, when they come to set their budgets in the next few weeks, they carry through their intention.
I do not want there to be any doubts on the issue. We want to be fair to councils, so we have listened to their views on notional amounts, but we must also hold faith with the local taxpayers, for whom capping is an important protection. I hope that all councils will act responsibly, and that I will not need to use my capping powers, but I will not hesitate to do so if necessary, in order to restrain excessive spending and hold down council tax levels.
The third of the reports for which I am today seeking the approval of the House is the special grant report. In particular, I wish to draw the attention of the House to two of the items contained in the report: the special grants for population loss, and in respect of displaced persons from the former republic of Yugoslavia.
A few minutes ago, I explained that SSAs this year need to reflect the availability of new data. In particular, we are now able to use population data from the 1991 census. That is a change from previous years, for which we have used 1981 census data, updated, each year by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We are bound to use the more recent data, but for a few authorities, that means a significantly lower SSA—which means less grant—than would have been the case if we had continued on the old basis.
It would be unreasonable to expect them to accommodate this reduction in a single year. I have therefore decided that, for those authorities whose SSA is more than 5 per cent. lower than it would have been if the old basis of estimating had continued, we should provide a special grant to compensate them in full for the excess over 5 per cent. Sixteen authorities will benefit, and a total of £3.5 million will be paid out under that scheme.
The special grant in respect of displaced persons from the former republic of Yugoslavia was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 16 November. The intention is to compensate authorities which face sudden unexpected additional expenditure as a result of the arrival in their area of the displaced persons. We have modelled the scheme on the more familiar Bellwin scheme, which applies to emergency expenditure following severe storms.
The principles are the same. Authorities can reasonably be expected to hold contingency reserves against minor emergencies, but in exceptional circumstances those reserves will simply not be enough to meet the case. Therefore, under the scheme, expenditure above a threshold qualifies for grant at a high rate—85 per cent. My Department invited authorities to submit estimates of expenditure on displaced persons from the former Yugoslavia. Three authorities have qualified, and will receive a total of £80,000 under the scheme.
Mr. Peter Shore: Personally, I welcome the principle and practice of allocating a special grant to those authorities with a substantial number of displaced persons—as, I am sure, do most hon. Members. We certainly have people from the former Yugoslavia very much in mind. However, has the Secretary of State thought about the case of displaced Somalis, a substantial number of whom have come to the United Kingdom during the past 12 months and more—and people from other communities? Is he prepared to

345
consider the extension of the principle to other displaced communities that impose substantial costs, particularly on London?
Mr. Howard: I think that the problems that arose as a result of the entry into this country of displaced persons from the former republic of Yugoslavia related to this year's settlement; but I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which I think he was asking—that, in the context of our thorough examination next year, in the light of the new information available from the census, we will consider the point that he has raised, among many others.
Mr. Wilkinson: The displaced persons in London are certainly not Yugoslavs: they come from countries such as Eritrea, Somalia, Zaire and other African states. Hillingdon, which contains Heathrow, has had to deal with the problem of displaced African children. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Bellwin formula applies to them?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend need wait only a matter of seconds before he has the answer to his question.
The scheme in the special grant report to which I have referred relates to expenditure incurred in the current year—1992–93. I am pleased to be able to announce today that we intend to operate a similar scheme for 1993–94. My Department will shortly be writing to local authorities, and I shall be seeking the House's approval for next year's scheme in due course.
I am pleased pleased to announce today—this will be of particular interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and other hon. Members—a related scheme to apply for the coming year in respect of another small group who place a disproportionate burden of costs on a small number of authorities. That may also be of interest to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I refer to the unaccompanied refugee children who arrive from time to time at the major ports of entry into this country and who become an immediate burden, usually on the authority in whose area they arrive.
Over time, the presence of these children in an area is reflected in the SSAs, but those assessments rely on data collected nationally and are therefore subject to inevitable time lags, whereas the costs imposed by these children are at their highest immediately after their arrival.
We therefore think it right to introduce a special grant scheme, also along the lines of the Bellwin scheme, to assist authorities in these circumstances. My Department will be writing to authorities shortly to obtain the information that we need as the basis for the scheme, and I shall bring a special grant report to the House in due course.
These special grants are one more token of the Government's commitment to ensuring that local government is properly—not extravagantly or disproportionately—financed for the coming year. We have provided for overall levels of spending and grant which reflect the constraints on public spending overall, but which should be sufficient to ensure that efficient authorities can continue to provide a good standard of service for their local people. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that the distribution of revenue support grant will be fair. We have listened hard to authorities' views on their notional amounts, and have taken them into
346
account whenever we could. We have also borne in mind the impact of the overall settlement on council tax payers. I commend the settlement to the House.
4.52 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: The speech that we have just heard was remarkable for one extraordinary omission: at no stage during the course of a half-hour speech did the Secretary of State refer to the serious loss of public services which will occur across the country or to the thousands of jobs that will unquestionably be lost as a result of this settlement—a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
Central Government in Britain now have more complete control over local government than at any time this century—more than is exercised in almost any other western parliamentary democracy. As other nations seek to draw strength from the diversity of their local communities and go down the path of greater devolution of power, in Britain since 1979 the process has inexorably worked the other way. In thirteen and a half years, 152 Acts of Parliament affecting local government have been introduced by the Conservative Administration. Not only has power over levels of spending been transferred to Whitehall; so, too, have many functions. We are moving, by means of this process, from the elected to the unelected state.
The Conservative party, once committed to cutting down on non-elected quangos, has made them stronger than ever before. Elected councillors have been removed from any role in health authorities, water authorities, further and higher education, most of training and probably soon the police. Instead, we have boards of cronies, appointed by Ministers and usually unaccountable either to Parliament or to local people. A recent survey by the Financial Times showed that
"unelected members of quango boards"
are now responsible for a fifth of all public expenditure—at £42,000 million, more than the total spending of local government, and a figure which has increased three times since 1979.
Ministers themselves know that this process has led to a considerable loss of local democracy. That is why, at each stage of the process, they have tried to play down the full impact of the powers that they have sought. Thus, the Secretary of State when he was a Minister of State had this to say on the capping powers taken in the 1988 Act:
"We have made it clear on more than one occasion that we see the capping power introduced in the clause as a reserve measure".
He added that there was a need for a reserve power, rarely if ever to be used, to protect charge payers in an area against extreme cases of extravagant or irresponsible local authorities, but went on, for good measure:
"The people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose."—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
Five years on, the capping regime now affects not just a handful of allegedly reckless, extravagant or irresponsible local councils but virtually every council in the land—Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Independent—the vast majority of whom are responsible, diligent and careful.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's concern, will he, as a resident of Lambeth, take this opportunity to condemn Labour

347
councillors who are content to take their attendance allowances but do not get around to paying their community charge?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I condemn any councillor who does not pay the community charge, as I always have done and always will do.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest benefit that a local authority can give its constituents is value for money? That is the best possible service. Will he therefore condemn local authorities under Labour control which appear to regard providing value for money as bottom of their list of priorities?
Mr. Straw: The desire for value for money is shared across the political spectrum. As they learned to their cost last Wednesday, Conservative Members should stop trying to remove the mote from other people's eyes and examine the beam in their own. When it comes to inefficiency, lack of services and many other less acceptable practices, the Conservative party in local government—and, above all, in national government—knows no peer.
The Secretary of State quite reasonably asked me what the Opposition would do in the circumstances. I shall set out our case against the position that he has outlined. The consequence of the universal capping regime is a loss of local democracy and discretion, and this year the loss of key services to the public and of the jobs which underpin those services. I shall deal with the effects of the cuts in a moment, but I wish first to ask whether the loss of local democracy and discretion and the high degree of central control are justified in terms of the good management of public spending and the overall conduct of economic policy. The contention that they are so justified, after all, lies at the heart of the Government's case.
What central Government provide to local authorities by way of revenue support plainly has to be cash limited, and should be distributed fairly under a formula which takes proper account of local needs and resources. That is not at issue here. In our view, however, the local tax base should be wider and should include the non-domestic rate, as it did before 1990. Secondly, what each council raises from its local tax base should be a matter between it and its electors, but with greatly improved mechanisms, such as those that we have proposed, for annual elections and for holding councils properly to account before their final budgetary decisions are made.
Three arguments are used against this proposition. The first is one of definition. It is said that what local government spends from its own resources is part of overall public spending. Central Government have a responsibility to control all public spending. Ergo—so the argument goes—central Government must control local authorities? total spending. That is a circular, tautologous argument in which the definition determines the policy. I wish to consider the underlying policy. Is there any need, even in narrow national accounting terms, for local authority self-financed spending to be part of total public spending for control purposes? The answer—not just from the Opposition but from none other than the Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury just a few years ago—is no.
348
In 1988, as part of a reform of public spending, the Prime Minister, then Chief Secretary, published a White Paper quaintly titled, "A New Public Expenditure Planning Total". In that, as a matter of policy, he said that self-financed local authority expenditure was to be excluded from the planning total. The arguments in the White Paper were extremely cogent. The document said that mixing central Government spending with local government self-financed expenditure
?blurs the status of the various aggregates … and leads to insufficient attention being paid to central Government grants.?
Paragraph 9 said that the purpose of this and other changes proposed in the White Paper was to increase local responsibility and accountability.
Paragraph 20 of the White Paper dealt with the issue of what might happen if central Government felt that overall local government expenditure was growing too rapidly. It stated:
?the Government would need to consider whether to take action to moderate the growth of spending within the planning total, whether its own spending or grants to local authorities?.
There was no suggestion in the scheme set out in the White Paper that capping would have any role to play.
The White Paper also gave the lie to the second and more substantial argument in favour of control—that a failure by central Government to exercise control could lead to excessively high local taxes which in turn, to echo the Secretary of State a few years ago, would drive away businesses and jobs through higher rates. That was a familiar argument in the last decade and it led to the fiasco of the poll tax and to the Conservative party almost falling on its sword. There was never any evidence to support it, nor is there such evidence from any of our competitors.
Much of the disparity in the level of rates and council tax has reflected not differential levels of spending, but bias and distortion within the grants system which magnify those differences out of all proportion. Even where higher tax rates accurately reflect higher spending, it does not follow that the higher spending and higher tax rates will have a detrimental effect on the local private economy.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in a completely misinformed tirade against capping. Why was it his party's policy at the last general election that the expenditure voted by the assembly which Labour proposed for Scotland should be capped while spending for local government would not?
Mr. Straw: The answeer is simple. It relates to judgments and the degree of discretion—[Interruption.] We are arguing about the discretion that particular institutions should be allowed. There is no point in the Secretary of State trying to avoid the issue. His Prime Minister put his name to the White Paper from which I have quoted. It objected to any capping and said not only that the amounts should not be collected, but that local authorities? self-financed expenditure should not be subject to central control.
The evidence against the Secretary of State?s case includes a major study conducted by the Department of the Environment in the mid-1980s. The Department objected to our claim that there was no necessary connection between higher rates and jobs, as Conservatives claimed, and spent £50,000 on a major study by the university of Cambridge. It then tried to suppress the study's conclusion that there was no

349
connection between the level of rates and job losses and that in manufacturing there was some evidence the other way.
Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman spoke of value for money, but I recognise that he may not want to answer questions about that. Did he see the article in Saturday's issue of The Times, which reported that Hackney council had rejected a bid from Costain plc which would have saved the council £2 million over three years in favour of a bid from its own direct labour organisation? Can the hon. Gentleman possibly justify that?
Mr. Straw: I did not see that issue of The Times or that report. Has the hon. Gentleman seen the well-publicised report about Conservative-controlled Brent, which shows that the district auditor has roundly criticised Brent council for awarding, without proper explanation, a tender for refuse collection which was £1 million above the lowest tender?
Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No.
A large part of local council spending, either directly or indirectly, underpins the local private economy. If one is reduced, the other is reduced—especially at times such as this when there is enormous spare capacity in the economy and when no "crowding-out" arguments can possibly be made.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State thinks, I asked the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury what judgments the Chancellor of the Exchequer made about the effects on employment, prices and the balance of payments of an additional £2 billion of local authority revenue expenditure financed by local taxation or, for example, by additional revenue support grant. If the Treasury's view is the same as that of the Secretary of State—that any increase in spending is bound to undermine the local economy—the Chief Secretary would reflect that view.
However, from the Chief Secretary on 11 of January came a piece of classic gobbledygook. The Treasury has no view on this. He stated:
?The effects on levels of employment, prices and on the balance of payments of the measures mentioned would depend on a number of assumptions about economic behaviour at both national and local level as well as the precise effect of these measures.?—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 547.]
There was no suggestion whatever that higher spending by local authorities would somehow undermine the local private economy. The Secretary of State and the Treasury know that, in general, higher spending by local authorities, particularly during a recession, supports the private economy and does not undermine it.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend talks about expenditure by local authorities. On 22 November in replying to an Adjournment debate, the Minister did not deny my charge that a £10 million fraud was perpetrated on the London borough of Newham due to the statutory arrangements for SSAs. The borough has to pay about £30 million in loan charges and the SSA is about £18 million, leaving a deficit of more than £10 million. As education is roughly half the cost of local authority services, we are having to cut the education budget by about £5 million below the standard level of service SSA that even this mingy Government think
350
necessary. That £5 million is just money, because the greater part of the capital expenditure was given the okay by the Government, so the £5 million cut is to the detriment of the children and the people of Newham.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes a cogent case. His example in Newham is one more example of the way in which the SSA system has been stacked against inner-urban and Labour authorities. I shall return to that.
It does not remotely follow that cutting local authority expenditure in the midst of recession will save the Exchequer any money. The Secretary of State was studious in his refusal to mention jobs during his half-hour speech, but we know that thousands of jobs will go as a result of the settlement. For every 10,000 job cuts in local government, which will lead to an equivalent rise in unemployment, the Exchequer cost—not the saving—will be £900 million in benefits and lost taxes, to which must be added additional cost to local government as demand-led services such as free school meals and housing benefit come under further pressure from families whose breadwinners no longer have jobs.
Overseas evidence overwhelmingly supports our case and not the Government's. That was confirmed by the White Paper about which the Secretary of State looks so puzzled. As I have said, the White Paper was issued five years ago, was signed by the present Prime Minister and argues against the Secretary of State's case. Paragraph 8 states:
?Very few other industrial countries plan public spending in this way?—
that is, by including local authority self-financed spending.
?For federal states, such as Germany, the United States or Canada, this would conflict with their federal constitutions. But even in other unitary states such as France or the Netherlands the Government generally makes budgetary plans only for central government expenditure.?
Mr. John Bowis rose—
Mr. Eric Pickles rose—
Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way. I think that I have given way enough for the moment. If they catch my eye later, I will give way to both hon. Gentlemen.
Although the local authority spend of the other countries that I have mentioned is not controlled, there is no evidence that they have done less well in terms of output, growth, exports or employment. How could there be such evidence when, since 1979, virtually every other OECD country has performed better than the United Kingdom according to every indicator that matters?
The third argument against the Secretary of State?s policy of centralisation is that it has not worked in its own terms. In any one year—as in this year—an unrealistic settlement can and will produce severe cuts in jobs and services, and considerable local dislocation. There is little evidence, however, that over time the panoply of controls has kept spending below its trend line—very much the reverse.
In July, the Local Government Chronicle—a paper whose views the Secretary of State is keen to quote when it suits him—published a detailed research study carried out by the London school of economics research unit, which showed that budget capping had
?led to higher spending by councils, the opposite result to that intended?.
It went on to give a number of cogent reasons for that apparently perverse consequence.

351
For instance, had the Government left well alone, there would have been a normal, broad distribution of spending patterns, with some councils spending above the norm and others spending well below it. The removal of local discretion has now put pressure on all authorities to spend at least at SSA levels in each service; when they do not, other Ministers—such as the Secretary of State for Education—are often the first to complain, thus adding to the incentives for councils to spend up to the norm even if they do not wish to do so.
I will quote the views of two Conservative councils. In The Independent of 28 January, Ernest Mallett, leader of Elmbridge district council, described the capping system as a ?joke? which encourages councils to ?spend up.? He added:
?If there was no capping our spending would probably be about £1 million lower?.
A curious position exists in Conservative-controlled Northamptonshire. Some county councils have done extremely well out of the SSA system: they are all Conservative-controlled. Northamptonshire is providing for 200 extra jobs and growth of £4 million as it seeks to spend up to SSA level. Central controls have undermined local accountability in two ways: power over budgets has been removed and, with that removal, the responsibility of local councillors to their electors has become "seriously blurred", in the words of the White Paper.
A third Conservative authority, Woking, says:
?Capping has removed the ability of elected councillors to pay for services that local residents want and have voted for.?
We want local accountability to be increased. The amount of grant should be transparent; more important, the budget process should amount to the striking of a bargain with the local electorate in each and every year. For that reason, we want annual elections to be held in every council, on a three-year cycle, with a much-extended budget period. Such a system would restore local democracy, and would be unlikely to lead over time to larger increases in total spending than would otherwise result.
Mr. Bowis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that local government is there not as a job creation scheme but as a provision of service scheme and that the efficient provision of services comes from efficient spending of resources? Lambeth, the borough in which he lives, receives 50 per cent. more central Government grant than neighbouring boroughs, including my own borough of Wandsworth. Does he accept that he receives lower levels of service in Lambeth because some £10 million has been wasted in fraud, because £185 million has been wasted in the non-collection of rents, rates and charges, and because 40,000 community charge bills have not even been sent out? Does he accept that the rest of us are not prepared to subsidise Lambeth and that that is why Lambeth needs to be capped—so that the charges can be kept down for everyone's benefit?
Mr. Straw: I want to see efficient councils everywhere, whether they are Conservative, Labour, Liberal or independent. We defer to no one in our pursuit of efficiency, and in our endeavours to root out corruption and fraud.
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. However, we have argued for years—indeed, about four
352
years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I introduced a Bill to this effect—that capping is not the way to increase accountability. Nor can it be increased by the use of SSAs which, even in a perfect world, are bound to involve a large arbitrary element. I am thinking particularly of London boroughs, which hold all-out elections only every four years, without the intervening elections which used to be held under the old Greater London council. The answer is to hold annual elections on a three-year cycle, which would enable the electors of Lambeth to vote their council out of office if they felt that they were not receiving appropriate services.
I should point out to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that in 1990, when Lambeth last held elections, the electors—contrary to all his predictions—voted in favour of Labour's retaining control.
Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman said that we must consider the number of redundancies in local authorities, and talked specifically of tens of thousands. Will he give us his estimate of the number of redundancies that local government will face?
Mr. Straw: I am coming to that.
Mr. Illsley: Recently, we have heard comments about London boroughs subsidising other London boroughs. Why should local authorities such as mine subsidise the Wandsworths and Westminsters, which charge practically no community charge? Never mind Lambeth—what about the Wandsworths and Westminsters that my local authority is subsidising to a far higher tune?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. No one who believed in a fair system of grant distribution could possibly justify the outrageous position that has arisen in Wandsworth and Westminster. Wandsworth charges no poll tax at all, and Westminster only a tiny one.
The fact that the current system of centralised control serves no economic utility makes the consequences of the Secretary of State's policy all the more gratuitous, and all the less acceptable. Make no mistake: there will be cuts in services, and many jobs will be lost. Local economies will suffer, and unemployment will rise in the areas affected. This afternoon, the Secretary of State tried to make light of the coming cuts: he referred to ritual protests, in words similar to those that he used on 26 November. I see Secretary of State nodding in agreement.
Fifteen months ago, as Labour's education spokesperson, I said that cuts already taking place in local government resources would lead to larger classes in schools. At the time, Ministers—including the present Home Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for Education—derided my claims. Who was correct? An article in Monday's Financial Times reported that secondary school class sizes had "increased sharply", and that
?in 48 metropolitan local education authorities … the pupil-to-teacher ratio … worsened by 0.5 or more pupils per teacher between January 1989 and January 1992. In only seven metropolitan LEAs has the ratio remained steady. In not one has it improved by more than 0.5. In some inner-city areas?—
in Knowsley, for example—
?the deterioration in the three years completely wiped out the gains of the previous 15 years.?
In Newham, north Tyneside, Rochdale and Walsall, class sizes have worsened as a direct result of the Government's policy.
Mr. Howard: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the dates covered by that article are not those covered by his prediction?
Mr. Straw: No. My predictions were based on what was already happening in 1990, as the Secretary of State well knows.[Laughter.] I do riot know why the Secretary of State is laughing; it is not a laughing matter. The situation is becoming worse and worse.
There is a similar picture in the shires, with 14 shire counties showing large increases in class sizes, the largest being in Derbyshire. The author of the research report on which the official figures are based commented:
?Restrictions on local authority spending seem to be the main cause of the sharp deterioration.?
One of the Secretary of State's great weaknesses is his capacity for self-delusion. It has been one of the few consistent characteristics of his political career. When he trumpeted his settlement to the House last November, he may even have believed what he was urging on the rest of us. His message then was that there would be no job losses, and he repeated it in a letter to me dated 17 December. He stated categorically:
?There is certainly no need, as you suggest, for authorities to cut their staff as a result of my proposals for the 1993/94 settlement.?
Nothing could be more categorical. He said that there was no need for cuts, but there will be cuts. They will be worse in Labour areas, but they will also be bad in many Tory areas. The list is endless.
This morning I published a list covering 80 authorities. One thousand redundancies were announced in Birmingham yesterday. Many thousands of jobs are bound to go. So will the Secretary of State retract what he said? Is he now saying that the levels of employment in local authorities will be the same next year, as he said in the letter? In the light of the overwhelming evidence, is it not time for him to admit that what he told me in December was wrong?
Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the statement that he made a moment ago, that 1,000 redundancies were declared in Birmingham yesterday? That is not what happened. It was a prediction by Birmingham city council of what was likely to happen as a result—it said—of the budget that it had set. It made it clear that it was not expecting compulsory redundancies. The prediction falls into exactly the same category as, for example, the county of Avon which began by predicting that the settlement would cost 4,000 council employees their jobs but now says that there might be 170 voluntary redundancies.
Mr. Straw: I notice that the one point that the Secretary of State did not answer was whether he now stands by the declaration that he made in December that there would be no job cuts.
Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I have already given way.
The Secretary of State's argument is as absurd as if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had told the House that the 31,000 job losses in the mining industry did not matter because most could be implemented through voluntary rather than compulsory redundancy. A job lost is a job lost: it represents one more person on the dole, and the Secretary of State should know that.
354
It is no good the Secretary of State trying to pretend that the settlement is sufficient, doing his usual three-card trick with the numbers and telling us that if one compares last year's settlement with this year's there is obviously enough money. It is no good because the base figures have no reality. To decide whether authorities will have to make cuts, one must compare what authorities are spending this year with what they are to be allowed to spend next year. On that basis, authorities are £200 million short in cash compared with this year.
Many are worse off than the figures imply. It is time that the Secretary of State understood that. If he does not want to listen to the Opposition and to Labour authorities, he should at least listen to other Conservatives. For example, he should listen to John Vereker, the Conservative leader of Warwickshire county council, who, when asked on Radio 4 on Monday night whether local authorities should not consider their bureaucracy, said that it was fine for the Government to lecture but that it was
?just a pity that the government itself couldn't do the same. For example in the Department of Education and Science their figures have gone up and up?—
for central Government spend—
?far higher than the rate of inflation. They've been able to move into three huge gold plated office blocks in the most expensive parts of London. at the same time as putting quite unrealistic pressure on the classroom and in schools where money was really intended by the taxpayer or the ratepayer to be spent.?
In complete contradiction of what the Secretary of State has been trying to tell the House, the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association said in the opening paragraph of its commentary on the settlement:
"As a result of the government's proposals for the 1993–94 revenue support grant … most Londoners will face the prospect of reduced services and/or higher bills for those services.?
That is the truth of the settlement.
I deal now with the distribution of the standard spending assessment. Labour controls virtually every large city and town in the country, including all the areas of greatest social need. In view of that, we might have expected some even-handedness in the grant distribution but that was not to be.
On average, the 120 Labour-controlled authorities are to receive an increase of only 2.5 per cent. in their SSA while the 115 Conservative-controlled authorities will receive 3.3 per cent. Surprise, surprise—with the county council elections coming up in May, what do we find? Of all the categories of authorities, the disparity between Labour and Conservative county councils is greatest. The eight Labour councils receive only 2.2 per cent. extra. The 19 Conservative-controlled shire councils receive 3.7 per cent. There is not one Labour county council with an SSA increase above the average in the first 18 in the list.
Staffordshire, Northumberland, Derbyshire, Humberside, Lancashire, Cleveland and Durham are all Labour-controlled and all face acute budget difficulties because of discrimination. In none of those areas are the difficulties of their own making. The Secretary of the State has the cheek to suggest that it is those councils' responsibility that the council tax there will be higher. He is the man responsible for the fact that council tax there will be higher, because of the way he has gerrymandered the SSA system.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must know that by far the biggest factor in those changes is population change. Is he seriously suggesting that we should not have used the latest population figures from the 1991 census?
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State was the master of the poll tax, and he was the one who went around the country—
Mr. Howard: Answer.
Mr. Straw: I am, I am. The Secretary of State should know that one of the consequences of the poll tax—the tax that he said would be the fairest and the best—is that the number of people registering for the electoral register and for the census is down. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. There has been massive under-registration for the census. That evidence is known to his Department, but he refused to take it into account.[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is so in counties controlled by the Labour party; it is a matter of record that the problem of under-registration is most acute in larger cities and towns—and we control the larger cities and towns and the counties with the largest urban populations.
Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman calm down and consider the facts? We are talking about counties, not inner-city areas. Is he seriously suggesting that people have removed themselves from the register in Labour-controlled shire counties but not in other counties? That is an absurd proposition.
Mr. Straw: It is not absurd at all. If the Secretary of State had any knowledge of the geography of this country, he would know that Labour-controlled shire counties are more urban than the Conservative-controlled shire counties. They contain major cities such as Bristol, Hull, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Preston. There is a much higher propensity not to register, especially among young people, in those areas than in areas with more stable populations. That is a fact.
The Secretary of State mentioned population loss. There has been an element of population loss but—surprise, surprise—Richmond and Wokingham, which are both Conservative controlled, receive a population loss grant while Islington and Camden which are Labour, do not.
The all ages social index rates Bournemouth as more deprived than Barnsley, Watford as more deprived than Wigan, and suggests that the Prime Minister's Huntingdonshire has poorer social conditions than Chester-le-Street. Is the Secretary of State going to say, on that evidence, that it is a fair system in which there has been no political gerrymandering? Dudley is told that it has £1,722 to spend on each primary age pupil, but Bedfordshire is allowed £250 more. Barnsley is allowed only £1,793 per pupil, but the Secretary of State's Kent—on no basis more deprived or in greater need than Barnsley—is given almost —100 more. I could go on and on. There is scarcely a service area where the data and methodology used are sufficiently robust to run a grant distribution system simply.
What makes matters so much worse is that the convoluted, contrived and politically distorted system is then used as a control on total spending, as the base line for capping and, through gearing, becomes one of the principal factors in the level of the council tax. We do not
356
yet know what the level of the council tax will be in each authority, but we can be certain of one thing—it will be far in excess of what the Government pretended that it would be during and before the general election campaign.
In 1991, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) predicted the council tax levels for each council area. He said that the average for the country would be £400 for band D. That was the basis of the Government's claims for the council tax before the election. Uprated for inflation, that £400 will be £428 in April of this year. However, as the Secretary of State is aware, since he quoted the Local Government Chronicle survey with great approval, the band D figure will not be £428 or anything like it. According to the Local Government Chronicle, the band D figure will be £550. That is £122 more—nearly a quarter more—than the figure that the right hon. Member for Henley and his right hon. Friends were peddling around the country before the election.
Higher council tax bills will be a consequence of the settlement. A second consequence will be further centralisation of power and a loss of democracy. Thirdly, many thousands of jobs will be lost. Fourthly, and most seriously, there will be a reduction in the public service that councils provide to individuals and communities across the land. That will mean shorter hours of libraries, the closure of residential homes for the elderly, higher charges for meals on wheels and home helps, larger classes and fewer policemen on the beat than what is necessary.
That is a policy without purpose—a policy so wrong-headed that it will increase unemployment and the borrowing requirement, worsen the recession and harm the very services on which the victims of the recession most rely. The policy is partisan and prejudiced, and we oppose it: it will not do.
5.31 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I do not pretend for a moment to be a great expert on local government. In fact, I last made a speech on the subject 10 years ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then."] Hon. Members may say, "Sit down," but I know injustice and unfairness when I see it. I know when my town faces a total catastrophe because of the complete and utter incompetence of Labour-controlled Harlow council.
For years, I, the district auditor and my colleagues on the Government Front Bench have been warning the local authority members that, unless they gained control of their spending and put it on a gradual downward path, there would be job losses, capping and a disaster for the services in my town. Just before the general election, they capitalised £17 million-worth of receipts. Their standard spending assessment is approximately £7 million, but they have been spending a budget of £26 million. Because, for some amazing reason, they believed that the Labour party was going to win the general election, they blew their reserves and spent all the money.
Dr. Roger Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: No, the hon. Gentleman must be patient. I have some very important points to make, which involve jobs and services that may be lost. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, it is my job to try to support the people in

357
my town. I do not want to make general party political points. I want to deal specifically with Harlow and how it is being affected by the Labour party there.
It was particularly interesting that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spoke about value for money. He and I were born and bred just a few miles from each other. From his knowledge of the history of the area, he knows that Harlow council has been spending year after year.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Just like Lancashire.
Mr. Hayes: As my hon. Friend has said, just like Lancashire.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the first eight years of Labour control, Lancashire increased its spending by 176 per cent., and it is still rising.
Mr. Hayes: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has made her point eloquently. She always looks after her constituents with great aplomb.
I would like to consider what is actually happening in Harlow. The truth of the matter is that the sky is black with Labour chickens coming home to roost. It might be helpful if I were to paraphrase some of the points made in a report by the Conservative group on 15 December 1992. The report stated:
"The Labour run council have built up a reputation for its quasi welfare state, in that it has to provide everything in the town … The result is that virtually every service in the town has a Council influence. All primary health facilities are provided in designated health centres, now owned by a Council funded trust. Apart from a bingo hall, a night club and the sports centre, all leisure facilities are council owned and run. A high profile Harlow Council for Voluntary Services … has almost nationalised the voluntary sector."
I wholeheartedly support that splendid organisation. I do not want to see it go to the wall because of the incompetence of the Labour party in Harlow. The report continues:
"Most voluntary organisation are Council-funded and have councillors involved in their running, to the extent that many voluntary bodies are reliant on district council funding to pay their salary bills."
I will now deal with the recent financial position. The report continues:
"For the past three years, since the introduction of the Community Charge, the council has funded approximately half of its General Rate Fund expenditure of around £24 million (against an SSA of approximately £7 million) through the use of capital receipts, interests and reserves. By 1993–94, the available reserves will be all but exhausted. The majority party do not have a strategy for dealing with this situation, apart from a very strong belief that Labour were going to win the general election."
Never mind what I and the Tory party say; what did the district auditor say in his most recent report? He said:
"The financial health of the Council continues to be a cause for concern."
If ever there was an understatement, that is one. The district auditor continues:
"In recent years, revenue expenditure has been supported by the use of reserves with the result that the general reserve balance has been reduced to some £12.2 million at 31 March 1992. Use of reserves at the current rate will exhaust the general reserve by 31 March 1993."
That spells total and utter disaster. It means the possibility of hundreds of decent people losing their jobs.
In the face of that, what does the Labour group in Harlow want me to do? The members of that group want me to go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary
358
of State and say, "Let's have some more money." They want me to ask for more money, after so much has been squandered over the years. If any money is forthcoming, it will not be money from my right hon. and learned Friend or from the Treasury: it will be money from people in Harlow. The whole point of the cap is to protect the people in Harlow. They will have to pay.
I would love to be able to go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—
Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. Although Barnsley may be very close to Harlow, I want to raise some important points that directly affect my constituency.
If the people in Harlow Labour party, who are entrusted with controlling the finances for the people in the area, had not spent their reserves in keeping the community charge down, it would have been £543 per person as opposed to £301. If my right hon. and learned Friend said, ?Right: we won't have a cap—I?ve changed my mind, because of the disaster that might happen,? the community charge this year would be much more than that figure. The council tax for a band D household would be more than £1,300 this year. That would completely crucify people who are on the breadline.
I do not mind going to my right hon. and learned Friend and his Front-Bench colleagues and saying, ?Look, the cap will have a tremendous effect on many of my constituent—on those who have worked hard for the community, on the voluntary and front-line services, and on the playhouse. Many important organisations are at risk. We need some breathing space.? I cannot ask my right hon. and learned Friend for that breathing space unless I have radical proposals from the Labour members who are in control.
Let us bring in the consultants. I asked councillors to do that years ago, but they refused. They said, ?We are one of the finest-run councils in the country. We don't need to bring in consultants.? I said, ?Let us listen to what the district auditor said and let us bring value for money,? but, no, none of that was to happen.
There have been damning reports from the district auditor, and there have been damaging reports from the treasurer who was mysteriously sacked. There were damning reports from the general manager, who said that no one has a grip on management in Harlow town hall. There have been restrictive practices after restrictive practices, and the trade unions have had far greater sway outside than they should have had.
I have been trying to urge Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats groups to put aside their party politics and sit round the table.[Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh, but, heavens, I have been trying to do that without much help. Let us have some radical solutions—but, no,all Harlow councillors want is more and more money. If I were a compulsive gambler who had just lost all my winnings on the last horse, it would be like going to my bank manager and asking for an overdraft so that I could put the rest of my money on a horse. How can my right hon. and learned Friend do that? We must get round the table and put forward radical solutions. ?Impossible, absolutely impossible,? they say. It is not impossible.
I shall make one or two suggestions. Of course they are pooh-poohed in the local newspapers every time I make

359
them, but the councillors have something called democracy and—what is it called?—decentralisation, which means mini-town hall. Of course that saves lots of money, so we are told, but what does the district auditor say? He says:
?The Council is currently undergoing a period of reorganisation with the proposed creation of the Neighbourhood Committees and Offices. Although the General Manager has assured us that the reorganisation will generate savings, costings have not been produced to show how this will be achieved. Any additional costs will place extra pressure on revenue budgets.?
You bet, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has cost £1.2 million.
We hear that the Labour group is to set a budget which will be well above the cap. We know, although we cannot prejudge anything that happens in court, that there is a very good chance that the cap will remain as it is. It means that people in Harlow will have to be re-billed. It will cost £200,000 to re-bill people because of a hopeless political exercise.
Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has been most patient. Of course I give way to him.
Mr. Illsley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the Chancellor reduced community charge bills by £140, every local authority in the country had to re-bill at a similar cost? It seems rather silly the hon. Gentleman complaining about re-billing, when the Government brought about re-billing in every local authority throughout the country.
Mr. Hayes: I knew that I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. He is a great expert on local government; he could have done much better than that. The hon. Gentleman knows that there was a great shout of relief in respect of that £140. People did not begrudge it. They were very pleased indeed, and they were certainly very pleased in Harlow.
What makes me so angry is that we have emotive campaigns about Kingsmoor house, a magnificent institution which looks after children who have been abused. It gives excellent support to people who are most in need. We are told that, because of the wicked Tory Government, it will be closed. Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much it costs to keep Kingsmoor house open? It costs £200,000 a year—precisely the same amount of money that is to be squandered on a silly party political exercise by the Labour party in Harlow. That is the depth that those councillors are sinking to.
Let me deal briefly with the report to which I alluded on the recent financial position. It goes on to state:
?by 1993–94, the available reserves will be all but exhausted.?
We have heard that from the district auditor. It goes on:
?The majority party do not have a strategy for dealing with this situation, apart from a very strong belief that Labour were going to win the general election. Financial reviews by the Council have occurred over the past two years in order to contain spending at £24M, which has only served to prevent inflation from increasing its actual expenditure. Efforts at saving £1.5M (90–91) and £2.0M (91–92) were only partly successful, as a result of additional monies becoming available during the year. There has been no sustained effort to reduce or moderate expenditure.?
The local Labour party is saying that, because my right hon. and learned Friend has quite sensibly introduced the
360
unified business rate, money is being stolen by the Government. Of course, business men remember the days when Harlow council used to fleece them. Until the introduction of the community charge UBR, Harlow had the highest poundage rate in the country—91p. That is what it meant to businesses in my constituency.
Let us deal briefly with the capital position. The auditor?s report—it is not disputed by the district auditor—states:
?In 1988–89 and 1989–90 housing maintenance costs were capitalised to the extent of £17M.?
We are talking about a political authority with an SSA of approximately £7 million. The report goes on:
?The overall effect of this was to transfer Right To Buy proceeds from housing capital to revenue reserves, to support revenue spending in future years. With the current financial regulations, this was resulted in £4.2M of debt charges falling to the?
general rate fund
?instead of £0.771M.?
That is the amount of money that we should be paying.
The hon. Member for Blackburn has sensibly left the Chamber and is doing other things. He said that he believed in value for money in local authorities, and that local authorities under Labour control did exactly the same thing. We should hear about what Harlow Labour party has been doing for compulsory competitive tendering. The report states:
?Although a number of Council services have gone out to tender, the Labour Group have ensured that the contracts are unattractive to external bidders. Many bids received have been inflated to cover the cost of monitoring the work carried out, an excess which was not applied to the in-house bid. The use of Council facilities and vehicles have been denied to prospective bidders. Leisure facilities have been block booked to community groups at prime times when they could attract premium rates.?
That is what is going on in Harlow at the moment. The hon. Member for Blackburn talks about value for money. The Labour party in Harlow would not know value for money and decent management if they ran into it and bit it on the leg with a large gin and tonic.
I have suggested time and again that consultants should be brought in, and that there are ways in which savings could be made. We know that the Labour group will have to set up another bidding operation which will cost £200,000. We hear about what is happening with front-line services, we hear about Kingsmoor house and all the great things that the Conservative group and I believe in, but we do not hear about what will happen to the policy unit. Of course the policy unit is party political; it costs only £1 million a year, and the council does not intend to scrap it. That is what is happening.
We must remember the spending that should be going on in Harlow. How much do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that Labour councillors spend on information technology? It is £3.5 million a year in Harlow council, with an SSA of about £7 million—just on information technology. [Laughter.] I am sorry that Opposition Members think that that is funny. I suppose that it would be funny if hundreds of people were not going to lose their jobs as a result of that incompetence. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is new to the Chamber, but the squandering that he used to get up to on his local council is well documented. I said that just in case the camera above my head zooms in on the hon. Gentleman laughing—as we can now have reaction

361
shots—at the misery that is being caused by members of his party who purport to look after the interests of ordinary people. Well, they do not.
Having dealt with the policy unit, let me briefly deal with the other excesses. For example, Harlow Labour party gives property rent-free to its pet causes, and council members have all sorts of facilities. I cannot complain too much about that, but I object to the trade union resource centre getting free property at the expense of the poor old charge payer. I resent organisations such ds the workers? rights project getting £80,000 a year out of the hard-pressed people of Harlow.
We spend £400,000 a year on the Harlow playhouse, a wonderful institution where I take my children regularly. It is under threat of closure. The board of management has proposed very sensibly, saving nearly £300,000 a year by putting it out to private tender and creating a joint relationship between private and public enterprise, but the council will not consider it. That is the sorry state of Harlow council.
I support the front-line services, the playhouse, Kingsmoor house and the tremendous work that ordinary people are doing to help those who are frail and vulnerable. Of course it is the frail and the vulnerable who will suffer. We do not hear about the old people's homes that are to close, about Kingsmoor house having to close and about those most in need who will suffer, but they will suffer simply because of the complete incompetence of the Labour-controlled council—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Attercliffe please contain himself? He may think that it is all tremendously funny, but many of my constituents will suffer because of some of the policies of his party that he supports.
I hope that members of the Labour party in Harlow will listen to some of the things that I have been saying and to some of the things that the general manager and the district auditor have been saying. If they do not, they will cause widespread misery to ordinary, decent folk in Harlow who are hard pressed enough.
5.53 pm
Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) asked Opposition Members to contain themselves, but the House will understand their amusement. I was sympathetic with only one point he raised: his suggestion that there should be less party political point scoring at the expense of local government. The fact that he continued at great length with a tirade against his own local authority gave the lie to that remark, but I shall return to that point later.
This year's revenue support grant settlement once again exposes the partisan nature of the Government's local government finance regime. Indeed, it goes further; it exposes the whole nature of the Government's approach to local democracy and the sinister way in which our traditional system of government is being undermined. One instrument which is used for those purposes is the standard spending assessment or SSA, a system which owes more to the prejudices of the Tory party than to any honest attempt properly to assess the needs of individual localities. It is a system which allows the Secretary of State to pick off individual councils and reward others.
Most casual observers would surely conclude that the needs of the people of Tyne and Wear in terms of local government services are likely to be at least as high as
362
those living in the heart of the capital. In fact, given the level of unemployment, the decline of industry and the continuing work to remove the scars of our industrial past, most would conclude that our needs are somewhat greater; yet, according to the Government, Tory-controlled Westminster's needs amount to £1,200 per head of population, while the needs of Labour-controlled Tyne and Wear authorities range from just £661 to £750.
A good example of the partisan nature of the system is the fact that, if Labour-controlled Gateshead were allocated the same level of SSA as Tory-controlled Westminster for just one year, Gateshead's council tax could be set at zero for the next three years. It is not a matter of more and more money, as the hon. Member for Harlow suggested earlier. All we want in Gateshead are the same resources that are being applied to Westminster.
The SSA system provides increased help to areas of higher pay and prices, which would appear to conflict with the Government's policy to restrain public sector pay, yet no recognition is made of the need for better public services in areas such as Tyne and Wear, where low incomes and high unemployment are much more prevalent than in Westminster.
If car ownership is low, there is a need for better public transport, and if people cannot afford golf club fees and private health clubs, there is a greater need for public recreation facilities. However, the system turns that logic on its head, so that the Tory party can direct resources to areas in the south to try to prevent the haemorrhage in its support. The comparison with Westminster demonstrates political manipulation of the system; my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr.Straw) drew attention to other examples.
There are other anomalies in the system. For instance, how can a Government who have acknowledged the similarity of the problems faced by Newcastle and Gateshead by creating a partnership area covering both, calculate that Gateshead needs £44 per a head, or £9 million less than Newcastle, to deal with the same problems? When one takes into account the fact that the great city of Newcastle is being forced to cut expenditure by £8 million this year and £12 million between 1994–96, the full scale of the effects of the settlement and the system is realised.
That is due to the inadequacy of the SSA and the fact that it has been reduced by £9 million following the removal of further education responsibilities from the city of Newcastle, although expenditure on those facilities last year was only £6 million. All that will mean reductions in services and increases in unemployment as yet more jobs are lost. The settlement means that more job losses are inevitable.
The magnitude of cuts when male unemployment runs at 40 per cent. in the city challenge area makes the so-called additional funds provided by such special measures woefully inadequate. What is the sense in recognising the special needs of an area by awarding city challenge and then forcing huge cuts in expenditure? The Government are about to correct that illogical scenario by scrapping the urban programme, a measure that will force the closure of thousands of voluntary projects throughout the country and reverse any progress which has been made in the attempts to improve the standard and quality of life in our inner cities over the past 20 years.
Mr. Illsley: Is my hon. Friend's authority in the same situation as mine, as a city challenge authority now having to spend money on implementing city challenge, which is a charge against its rate support grant and its budget, and finding it difficult to maintain now that the urban programme money is being withdrawn?
Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend draws attention to yet more inconsistencies in the system.
A system which gives with one hand and takes with the other is not helping our localities, and the people who live in the inner-city areas recognise that. People who are active in the inner-city challenge areas recognise that the money that is being given to them is being taken away from others who may he just as needy. It is not a fair or just system.
One of the overriding concerns of people in the city challenge area, on Tyneside and in Britain in general, is the high and increasing level of crime, yet the SSA and capping limits placed upon the Northumbrian police authority in this settlement, will put at risk the effect of combating crime in the area.
The 4.5 per cent. increase in SSA, which itself understates the spending needs of Northumbria, is expected to absorb the full effect of the 1992 police pay award approved by the Home Secretary at 6.5 per cent. It is expected to absorb the increase in the cost of police pensions, which is 10 per cent. of the authority's budget, the increase in insurance premiums, and the increases in national insurance from 1 April.
In a letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the police authority has said:
?The implications for policing levels in Northumbria of the provisional RSG settlement are dire. It is no understatement that the progress achieved in recent years is at risk.?
Add to this the ending of the urban crime fund and the full scale of the very serious situation now facing our communities is frighteningly obvious.
All this has been pointed out to the Secretary of State, but little or nothing has changed. All the warnings and arguments have fallen on the deaf ears of the right hon. Gentleman, whose Cheshire cat smile perhaps arises from the amusement that he derives from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?s claim in the autumn statement that the RSG settlement should be totally adequate for local government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks where the money would come from to meet the improvements we call for. For a start, he could correct the anomalies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I have drawn attention. Also, he might look at the millions of pounds currently being spent on unelected quangos appointed by him and his right hon. Friends throughout the country.
The inadequacies of the SSA system are now compounded by the anomalies of the council tax system, incidentally. How can it be right that a disabled person living in a property valued at over a quarter of a million pounds can benefit from a reduction in council tax, yet someone else with perhaps even more severe disabilities living in a property valued at only £30,000 gets no reduction? This has serious implications for people living in my constituency, where 65 per cent. of properties are in hand A. It would be the economics of the madhouse if it were just about economics, but of course that is not what it is about, is it?
364
The overall effect is staggering, with an estimated 33,000 job losses in local government as a result—equal to those which caused such a public outcry, and justifiably so, when the closure of 31 pits was announced last year. Like the threatened job losses in the mining industry, these 33,000 redundancies will have a knock-on effect, so that the overall impact on localities and the national economy will be severe.
All this is part of the Government's strategy to run down local government replace locally accountable elected councils by quangos accountable only to the Government; the octopus method of government, whereby Whitehall extends its tentacles into every corner of the country, eliminating political opposition and strangling local needs and priorities. It is entirely ideological. There is no case for the kind of strict control of locally raised finances which this Government imposed, other than unbridled dogma.
The attacks on local government finances are accompanied by appeals and incentives to opt out of the local government structure, and by restrictions on the eligibility to stand for election by the introduction of the concept of politically restricted posts, compulsory competitive tendering, and so on. The result is that local authorities can no longer respond to the wishes of the people they are elected to serve, but serve instead central Government and the priorities and prejudices of central office. It is a system more at home in pre-war Russia than in 1990s Britain. No wonder all political parties are finding it difficult to attract candidates in local elections.
There is a deliberate campaign by Tory Members to discredit and denigrate local government at every turn. We saw it again last week, when they leaped so eagerly and gleefully on the news of maladministration in Lambeth, and the Secretary of State has been at it again today.
Never in the history of culinary metaphors have so many frying pans called the kettle black. Tory Members could fake virtue for Europe, but if it is their objective to damage Labour local government, it does not work. All that happens is that some of my hon. Friends are provoked into responding with examples of Tory malpractice. These tit-for-tat exchanges, which rarely rise above the debating level of the school playground, result only in damaging all local democracy by grossly exaggerating the extent of malpractice in local authorities, which is no worse than in any other sector of society, especially the Tory party.
It all suits the purpose of those who would further diminish the role of democracy in this country—the real enemies within, who have done more to undermine the faith of the British people in their system of government than could any sinister, well thought out KGB or CIA plot.
New and unaccountable power bases have been encouraged and asssisted to develop over the past 14 years. They can be seen throughout our towns and cities, planning the lives and futures of millions of our people, without any mandate to do so. I remember well the occasion of the Northumberland Plate at Gosforth park racecourse a few years ago. I asked what the small groups of local gentry were gathered together to discuss, and was told that they were deciding who should be the chairman of the training and enterprise council. And so they did, in between the Brown Ale handicap and the Federation cup. How about that for open government?

365
That is but one minor example of the goings on throughout the country, as the only question that needs to be answered satisfactorily for certain people to be appointed to often well-paid sinecures is: ?Is he one of us??
The RSG settlement continues this centralist trend and the opportunities for real corruption are extended yet again as democratic scrutiny is further watered down. It will do nothing to improve and extend the services on which so many of my constituents rely. On the contrary, the further attack on local government which this package represents will further weaken its ability to tackle the problems faced by communities, businesses and individuals on Tyneside and elsewhere.
The system of local government finance now in place in this country is unfair, unjust and deliberately tailored to shackle, rather than free, local priorities and local enterprise. It is discriminatory and prejudiced, and brings no credit to this Government or its architects.
6.6 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: On two issues I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who opened the debate for the Opposition. The first is his support for Blackburn Rovers, which is highly commendable. The second is that for many years he has said that the solution to the problem of some of the lunatic councils in London is annual elections. I believe that we will have problems in London until we have annual elections. In the gap of four years between elections, those councils can get carried away and the response to the electorate is weakened. I commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends the introduction, at some stage, of annual elections in London. It would be good for all the party systems and for the response to the electorate.
Reference has been made to the £140 that was taken off the community charge and put on VAT. I would have liked the community charge to remain once that £140 had been taken off, because the objection to the community charge was basically its size, not the principle. I realise that that is water under the bridge, but I put it on record.
I am concerned particularly about London and the south-east—the area which includes the constituency that I now represent. The Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and other bodies in London considered, when the council tax was brought in, that it would be unfair to London and the south-east. That is because it is a modified property tax and houses in London and the south-east are very expensive, not because they are bigger than houses elsewhere or because people in the area are earning more, but simply because of land shortage. One does not buy a house; one buys a plot of land on which the house is built.
The LBA thinks that London loses about £200 million and the rest of the south-east about £175 million because of this change to a property system. Similarly, it has been calculated that for people in London and the south-east to live at the same standard as people in other parts of the country, they must earn about £6,000 a year more because of travel and housing costs in the area. This is something that I have to remind my right hon. and hon. Friends about in connection with the difficult issue of sharing out the money that is available. That is why the London Boroughs Association—I and other London Members went along with it—pressed for a separate set of bands for London and the south-east, because the house price gap
366
between London and the rest of the country was wider than it was between Wales and England and between England and Scotland, where separate bands were inserted.
The recession in London is really a slump. I grew up in Lancashire during the depression when, at one stage, unemployment in the cotton industry in my own town was higher than unemployment in Jarrow. But although Lancashire was in a terrible state in the 1930s, London was prosperous. That is when all the houses were being built. One would have to go back more than a hundred years to encounter anything like the situation that we have now. It means that the depression is greater. Those of us who were born in the north knew that the good times would not last. We invested in the local Co-op, we bought saving certificates, and we put the rent money on one side. We hid our nuts against the bad times that were coming. But in London it had been assumed that the prosperity would continue.
Unemployment is now 10 to 12 per cent. in my constituency and the figure is rising faster than in practically any other constituency in the country. I am not against capping and I recognise the difficulty of sharing the money out, but a high council tax in London will increase the number of repossessions when people who are struggling to pay mortgages find that they have to pay more because of the introduction of council tax.
The greatest losers under the council tax are single people in three or four-bedroomed properties with limited resources, not the rich or those with no resources, but those in between who have saved. People say that they should sell their houses, but a widow who has lived in the house all her life and who wants her children and grandchildren to visit her at Christmas and other times will find her present life style disappearing if she has to sell the house.
I know that there is transitional relief, but it is less overall, from what I have worked out, than it was with the community charge, and one wonders how long it will last. When the Minister replies to the debate, I would welcome a statement that it will be reconsidered each year according to the circumstances prevailing.
There are advantages with the council tax, I know. It is easier to collect. That is the great advantage of any form of property tax: one cannot hide a house when someone comes up the road. The history of window tax and similar taxes shows that people return to a property tax time and again because of ease of identification. Three million people on low incomes will get a rebate, 6 million will get a 25 per cent. discount, and I am glad that 600,000 students will also be exempt. It all helps.
One of the things that sank the community charge was the great increase in expenditure that went with it. On my statistics—and the Department will know them better than I do these days—it went up by about 31 per cent. in one year. But the new tax has been introduced in a way that will not break the bank, and I commend the Department on the way in which it has handled it.
Brent last year had £254 million. This year it had £258 million. Last week it got about £750,000 more, an increase which is still less than 2 per cent. The problem in Brent£and it is not the only London borough which has it—is the accuracy of its registers and of the census on which they are based. People just disappeared. Interestingly enough, there have been so many objections to the registers in Brent that people are now knocking on doors

367
to find out who is there, which seems to me the right way to do it rather than sending questions out with junk mail which just disappears. In the past three or four weeks they have discovered many thousands more people. As far as I know, they have not come from outer space; they must have been there for a long time and they have been identified. We know that people came off the registers because of the community charge: they feared a cross-check. There is something of a mystery as to how big a population some London boroughs have.
Reference has been made by Conservative Members to the refugee problem, which is intense in London. I have large numbers of Somali refugees in my constituency, and the numbers increase all the time. It is not a question of small numbers; they arrive in their hundreds.
The Secretary of State has worked hard to get the council tax right, and I pay tribute to him and the Minister of State for that, but it would be very good if Brent could bring them evidence to show that the real population is higher than the number which has been accepted in the past. I believe that there may be as many as 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 people who live there but who have still not been identified. If we could also get accurate numbers of refugees, and if I could bring my council leader to the Minister to see what can be done—
Mr.Illsley rose—
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Let me finish this point and then I will give way.
I am warned by my council leader in Brent that, as things stand, the cuts will have to be made in education. It means that about 90 teachers will lose their jobs. That is why I am concerned to bridge the gap. I have always worried about education, and the one thing that will upset all families is a threat to their children's education through what they see as a change of system. So I would like to bring my council leader to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of State with more information. The more accurate we get the registers, the better it will be, for possible boundary changes and everything else. All the information is suspect at present.
Mr. Illsley: The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about registers strikes a chord among Opposition Members. I have read of the work done by Brent to increase the numbers on the register, but will the right hon. Gentleman agree that more resources ought to be given to improve the electoral registers, in view of the shortfall identified not only by the right hon. Gentleman but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who is sponsoring a Bill on that point? Surely it would be better for all local authorities to have adequate resources to improve the registers.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agree with the hon. Member Registration in Britain is supposed to be compulsory. In the United States it is still voluntary, but in certain parts of Brent registration has become voluntary. I do not know whether they go into the loft when one goes round, whether they have cellars or whether they go on to their allotments. I go out every second Sunday with people on the knocker to see what is happening. I take the registers with me and I find that the discrepancy is about 15 or 16 per cent. A house is supposed to have only two
368
inhabitants, but when the door is opened I find a veritable feast going on inside—to which, of course, I am invited, as hon. Members would expect. But I cannot then ask who has registered or who has paid the poll tax. Far be it from me to do so. A little Christian charity is required on such occasions.
Once upon a time registers were reliable, but I do not believe that they are reliable now. Despite my support for the community charge, I believe that if it had one disadvantage it was the fact that it put an end to the accuracy of the registers and encouraged people to stray into error, something that legislation ought not to do, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree. That temptation has now gone, and people are coming back on to the registers. The greater the pressure that the Department can bring to bear to put the registers right, the better, so that we know how many people there arc in this country. It might be interesting to know how many people are living here and whether the whole country is sinking or coming up according to the total population.
Whatever anyone's views might have been at the beginning about the council tax, the council tax must now work. The battle between national Government and local government has done no good to either national Government or local government. I have always believed in the dispersal of power. The centre of power should not be in one area. There is a risk of centralising power, regardless of which party is in Government. Because the Government has the numbers, the Departments and so on, there is always a permanent risk to corrupt Ministers, to put it that way, to the idea that they can run local government better than anyone else.
The battle has run for the past 15 to 20 years. There has been a strong tendency for local government elections to go the other way, whatever the Government's colour. When the Labour party was in Government between 1966 and 1970, it almost disappeared in local town halls. I remember that Islington became Conservative controlled. Hackney came under Conservative control, although it had not had one Conservative councillor before.
As soon as we get a certain party in government—my hon. Friend the Minister of State has good experience of local government—local government goes the other way which tempts the Government to battle with local government. We must get the council tax right because the battle must not be allowed to continue. We must have a spread of power, otherwise it will be dangerous for everybody.
I shall vote with the Government tonight. I have had to wrestle with my conscience on the matter. I admit that I should have the habit of voting with the Government from time to time. After the Maastricht debate and so on, it will be exciting to go into the Aye Lobby. I told my wife that today will be a strange day.
I shall vote with the Government because they have done their best to clear up a difficult matter. At the same time, I remind the Minister that I should like him to help me to force my council to get it right and get the 60 councillors to knock on doors nightly to see who is there. He should then know that there are problems in Brent with under-registration and an increased number of refugees so that I can help the people in my constituency at the same time. The last thing I want is any cut in schools which would damage education in Brent.
6.23 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: We have had some vintage performances today. I especially enjoyed the performance of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) who raised the important matter of the Government's tendency to centralise everything. I always complain that the Government's policy on local government control is based on the three Cs-centralise, centralise and centralise. That has certainly happened recently.
We had a vintage performance from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful that you did not call me immediately after his speech, because I was laughing so much internally that I got the hiccups, but I have recovered now. We also had a vintage performance from the Secretary of State. Like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I was astonished that the Secretary of State did not mention jobs.
What is the settlement all about? It is about jobs and cuts. We have all seen the Local Government Chronicle of 15 January, which reported that the number of non-teaching jobs to be lost is estimated at more than 32,000. I hope that that projection is wrong. I hope that 32,000 non-teaching jobs will not be lost. To get anywhere near the promise made by the Secretary of State in the debate on 26 November, local authorities will need to go through economic contortions to set budgets which are somewhere near the capping level. When the revenue support grant figures were originally announced in the debate on 26 November, the Secretary of State said:
?I am confident that this settlement will provide local authorities with the resources that they need to deliver the wide range of local services of the quality which people expect and deserve?.
When I pressed him about jobs, he replied:
?If local authorities manage their resources sensibly and adhere to the public sector pay policy guidelines … there will be no need for job losses.?—[Official Report, 26 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1011, 1015.]
I must declare an interest as an elected councillor in Gloucestershire. We will be setting our budget next week. One of the guidelines that we will be examining is our ability to set a budget without job losses. At this stage, it is unlikely that we will be able to come anywhere near the capping level if we adhere to the Secretary of State's advice.
What are the cuts which we are examining? Four out of five social services directors in England expect a reduction in their budget, despite having new community care responsibilities. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimates that the Government are under funding the new community care responsibilities of local authorities by £135 million.
Much of the problem stems from inaccuracies in SSAs. Standard spending assessments are to accuracy what. Evil Knievel is to road safety—not relevant. Standard spending assessments are not a mechanism to calculate the spending requirement or needs of an area; they are a mechanism to divide a predetermined amount among authorities. That means that local councils are assumed to spend a certain amount on a certain service, when the reality is much different.
Standard spending assessments are the consequence of Whitehall bureaucrats pondering inadequate data, bogus statistical analyses and subjective judgments to devise a system which bears little relation to reality. How can the
370
system be justified when, according to SSAs, children in Richmond upon Thames are classed as more in need than those in Barnsley? I am pleased that the Secretary of State will review the workings of SSAs. Pending that review, he might like to relieve councils of their caps, so that they can set the budgets which they would like to set this year.
I shall give three examples of cases in which SSAs are causing difficulty. In Warwickshire, the fire and rescue budget for 1992–93 was £2.4 million over SSA. The Department of the Environment said that the amount was excessive, yet the Home Office said that it was insufficient to meet minimum standards.
On the Isle of Wight, the fire service budget for 1993–94 is £1 million over SSA. To get the SSA, the island would have to close stations or reduce staffing. Such factors are controlled by the Home Office, which sets SSAs, but it is saying that the island should spend £1.5 million more on fire.
In my own county of Gloucestershire, the chief constable has been asked what spending at SSA will mean to him. It will mean keeping 40 officer posts and 73 civilian posts vacant. I went out with the Gloucestershire police one Saturday evening a few weeks ago. They have a difficult job to do. They are undermanned and do not have enough facilities. There is a growing crime rate in the county. It is wrong that two Government Departments are saying different things. The Home Office is saying that the chief constable needs so many men and the Department of the Environment is saying that the SSA is the amount which can be spent.
According to the Association of County Councils, 69 out of 108 local education authorities spend above SSA. That is important, because education is a large proportion of the spending of local authorities. It is not merely local education authority schools that want standard spending assessments for education, but also grant-maintained schools. A joint delegation from Gloucestershire met the Minister to press the case for SSAs to be funded at a realistic level.
Even if the SSAs were accurate—I contend that they are not—they would not take into account the problems that the recession is causing local authorities. For instance, Harrogate, where Liberal Democrats recently took majority control, is facing an additional bill of £452,000 for housing benefit. Sutton is facing a loss of £547,000 in reduced income from car parking and increased spending on free school meals, due to the recession.
Bournemouth, like other seaside resorts, has suffered a drastic reduction in income, and has lost £1 million out of a total £19 million budget because of reduced trading income. Cornwall has had to add £750,000 to its free schools meals budget, which is at an all-time high. Richmond is facing a bill of £2.5 million extra because of the costs of homelessness due to repossessions and arrears. None of those costs has been reflected in the settlement, and they will all cause cuts in services and job losses.
The Secretary of State has said that, as long as local councils stick to the 1.5 per cent. pay policy, they will not have to make cuts. However, police and fire service pay are not subject to that limit.
I shall compare central and local government spending. The former is set to rise by 6.6 per cent. during the next financial year. The Secretary of State said today that local government spending is rising by only 3.1 per cent., which is less than half the amount that central Government are allowing themselves. With the latest cuts in interest rates

371
and the devaluation of the pound—let alone the knock-on effect in the 1993–94 budget of the 1992–93 pay round—there is every chance that inflation may well be higher than 3.1 per cent.
In a letter to parents dated January 1993, Mr. Gardiner, the head teacher of a school attended by many children in my constituency, said:
?The amount of money that the County Council is allowed to spend is controlled by central government. This year the money that will be available to schools is well below what is required to run schools effectively.
I estimate that since 1991 our budget has been cut by about 10 per cent. in real terms. For the coming financial year the school budget is to be reduced by approximately 6 per cent. and the prediction for 1994–95 is equally gloomy … A cut in our budget of 6 per cent. next year will mean that, in common with other schools in the County, class size, resources and staffing will all be affected.?
He urges parents to write
?to County Councillors, local Members of Parliament and the Secretary of State?.
I know that many of them are doing so.
I do not get letters in my post bag asking me to keep the council tax low, but I receive bucketloads of letters asking me to protect services, education and social services, and to improve policing, in the face of the current crime wave.
Local authority spending should be based on need, and standard spending assessments do not reflect that. The settlements mean that local authorities are bearing the brunt of public spending cuts. Services are set to be hammered, and thousands of jobs will go. The responsibility for that will lie not with local councillors, who are jumping through hoops trying to find savings, but with the Secretary of State and the Government.
Capping is undemocratic. Even the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association has opposed universal capping. I repeat what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said when he quoted the Secretary of State as saying of capping, in 1988:
?It is not a measure to be used as a matter of course.?
It is important to remember that, as it is being used as such.
?The people of an area will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose.?—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
Many local authorities feel hard done by, including many that do not receive area cost adjustments. I asked the Secretary of State for Education for some figures on average teacher salaries in councils that have area cost adjustments compared with areas that do not. I was surprised to find that Dorset, which does not benefit, has a higher average teacher salary than Hampshire, which does benefit. My county has a higher teacher salary average than Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, West Sussex or the Isles of Scilly, which all receive area cost adjustments. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that he would reconsider area cost adjustments, because they seem unjust.
I am in a difficult position over my local authority's budget. Hon. Members will know that in many cases the notional amount has been adjusted since the original estimate at the end of last year. The notional amount for Gloucestershire has increased by almost £5 million—I am grateful for that—because the Government have admitted that they made a few errors in their original calculations. It therefore came as some surprise last Friday to discover
372
that, instead of being increased by £5 million, the Gloucestershire SSA has been reduced by £0.4 million, which will cause severe problems when we set our budget.
Many councils will feel hard done by, and many will wish to appeal against their cap. Will the Secretary of State consider carefully before designating authorities for capping, and be open to persuasion by councils that decide to appeal against their cap?
Liberal Democrats believe that local people have the right to choose whatever local administration they see fit. If they choose an incompetent administration, they have the right to throw them out, and I support the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and others who have suggested that annual elections are one way to achieve that.
Fortunately, given the way the Government are going, there is every chance that the Conservatives will be thrown out of county halls throughout the country on 6 May, and that they will be thrown out of government in 1996, or perhaps even earlier. Frankly, when that happens, local government will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
6.37 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). He and I served on the Committee on the Housing and Urban Development Bill, and as he was not a frequent attender it is nice to remind ourselves of exactly what he looks like.
There can be no doubt that the settlement is tight and will challenge some authorities; nor can there be any doubt that some authorities will be in difficulties. But the settlement certainly is not a surprise as it was well flagged in the local government press and is within the area of expectation. The level of settlement is considerably higher than was predicted in many quarters.
Prudent councils which care about their local communities would and should have been taking the necessary reforms already, and starting to reduce their expenditure gradually, to minimise the effects on services and to plan sensibly. After all, reductions in growth taken out over a long time minimise the effects on services.
Over the past few weeks we have seen a number of Labour councillors and Labour councils shroud-waving to the press, predicting thousands upon thousands of redundancies. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talked in terms of tens of thousands. The hon. Gentleman kindly allowed me to intervene, and I asked him to give me his estimate, as he said that this was central to the Labour party's programme. Sadly, he failed to give me any figures. I tried again to intervene, but without success. As the hon. Gentleman is a courteous person, he apologised to me outside the Chamber.
I have no doubt that this matter is central to the Labour party's strategy. I see on the Opposition Front Bench the amicable and urbane frame of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). If either of them cares to tell us what redundancies they anticipate, I shall be happy to give way. After all, these figures are central to the case that they make. I am not surprised that neither hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. We have already seen the considerable fall-out that Labour authorities have suffered from estimates.

373
This morning we heard the figures from Birmingham city council, which has reduced the level of expected redundancies by about 70 per cent., to 1,000, all of which the council says can be taken care of without any compulsion. One does not expect estimates to be precise, but an error of 70 per cent. suggests to me that the council was trying to frighten the trade unions—a practice that I obviously deplore.
Mr. Ainsworth: Does the hon. Gentleman know that between the November statement and the previous one there was a considerable increase in the spending allowance for Birmingham? Did not that increase give rise to the revised estimate?
Mr. Pickles: I am very pleased about the increase. It shows that the Government listen to sensible points put forward by political parties. Perhaps it gives the lie to the suggestion that the Government are conducting a vendetta against Labour councils. One cannot in one breath complain about a vendetta against Labour councils and in the next breath talk about an increase in the Government's notional amounts.
Local government takes care of about 25 per cent. of public expenditure. That being the case, it is not unreasonable that councils should play a part in ensuring that settlements are in line with what the public can afford. Central Government support has increased by about 3.7 per cent., and I am very pleased to say that the notional amounts have been increased by about £150 million.
We are starting to move into a different kind of debate on the revenue support grant. I believe that the quality and spending options will be matters of the greatest concern in future debates, as they are in this one.
I come to what the hon. Member for Blackburn called a question of judgment. Because of the decisions on value added tax and on capping powers, but particularly because of the effects of gearing, the irresponsible rate and community charge increases of the latter part of the 1980s will no longer be possible. The differential will continue to exist.
I am grateful for figures produced recently by Tony Travers, which show that Tory propaganda was right all along: ?Conservative councils cost you less?—nearly £ 100 less. However, because of the trends in the Audit Commission and the introduction of the citizens charter, councils will increasingly look to performance indicators, and electors will increasingly know the cost of refuse collection in one borough as against another and will start to ask difficult questions. Councillors will no longer be able to hide behind the mystique of local government finance; they will be brought to account and will have to justify their spending arrangements.
Let me give an example. There is no doubt that the good people of Hackney will want to know why their council decided to forgo savings of £2 million. I refer to a recent decision of the council to award its own direct labour organisation £2 million more in expenses. I expect that, right at this moment, the whole borough of Hackney is shaking its head in wonder. The awarding of this maintenance contract to the council's own workers goes against all ideas of normality in local government. This is a lot of money to be slushing around. There is no suggestion that Hackney pays its work force competitive rates; I think that there is some suggestion that it pays slightly more.
374
I should like to deal with a matter that has arisen in this debate and about which the House has heard before. I refer to corruption in local government. It must be said loudly that the majority of councillors in this country are honest, decent people who work hard for their local communities. That applies right across the political spectrum. Councillors put in long hours for virtually no pay. They put something back into their communities, and I believe that local government service is honourable service. But corruption allegations touch every councillor. They obviously touch the dishonest, but they also hurt and damage the honest. It is not good enough to produce tatty pieces of paper or to make suggestions about meetings at racecourses when, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, there are people who have their hands in the till and their snouts in the trough.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Government.
Mr. Pickles: Cheap remarks from a sedentary position are not good enough. Such comments let down Labour councillors, as well as councillors of all other political parties, throughout the land. We need to stand together to ensure that corruption is wiped out.
Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman condemn his colleagues who, in this Chamber last week, asked for investigations by the police and the Audit Commission into Labour local authorities in general? Was not that a slur on all the honest Labour members of those authorities who are doing an excellent job on behalf of their constituents?
Mr. Pickles: I understand the hon. Gentleman's remark. I know that he was bruised by the revelations about his office accommodation. However, it seems to me legitimate to have discussions about options—whether it is more desirable to provide offices for Members of Parliament or to provide lollipop ladies. In any case, any allegations of corruption must be investigated with the utmost rigour.
I should like to make a suggestion about how all this might be put behind us. A common thread runs through the incidents and allegations of corruption and maladministration, both of which are equally damaging to local authorities. That thread involves a blurring of the responsibilities of councillors and officers; councillors start to take on responsibilities that properly belong to council officers. That problem has not suddenly occurred. The House was unwise not to heed the warning in the Redcliffe-Maud report many years ago, which referred to the role of the officer and the member.
The report stated that if we were to attract a higher calibre of officer and a better quality of member, there should be a clear demarcation of responsibility between the two. The member should concentrate on devising and monitoring the policy; the officer should concentrate on implementing the policy and on general managerial issues. When one considers all the problems lately, one sees that the councillor has started to assume the role of the officer.
There is currently a working party in the Department of the Environment studying good practice. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise us on how that working party is progressing. It seems sensible that it should look specifically at the role of the officer and the role of the member.

375
This country certainly deserves good local government which can respond to, and meet the needs of, the people. The role of the officer and the role of the member deserve serious consideration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): A practice seems to be developing in the Chamber whereby hon. Members from both sides of the House are bringing in communication devices. On two occasions this week when I have been in the Chair, an hon. Member's speech has been disrupted by such a gadget. It would help our debates if people did not bring such gadgets into the Chamber.
6.52 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I agree with the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), particularly about under-registration, which is a problem that affects every local authority district, and I am pleased that he has been able to tackle the problem of under-registration in Brent. However, I repeat the call that the Government should consider a nationwide system to improve registration for elections. All three constituencies in my region are well under-represented in the current electoral register.
Having said that, I intend to speak about the standard spending assessments used to formulate revenue support grant, in particular as those assessments apply to my local authority, Barnsley metropolitan borough council. Barnsley's standing spending assessment has been set at a level well below the amount that the authority needs to spend to maintain its services. This is not the first time that I have complained about SSAs and the Government's ridiculous treatment of mining areas, particularly with regard to SSAs and determining grants. Three years ago I complained that Barnsley had been poll-capped—it was one of the 21 authorities to have been capped, one third of which were coal mining districts. That shows where the Government have targeted their cuts in local government expenditure.
When we complained about the cuts that would have to be made in local government expenditure the predecessor of the present Secretary of State spoke of a parade of bleeding stumps. I have listened to the latest version, in which the Secretary of State spoke of ritual protests from the Opposition. The Government simply do not believe that the cuts are being made. I have no reason to believe that the present Secretary of State understands the position any better than his predecessors.
Three years ago the music centre in Barnsley, which taught music to a very high standard, was closed as a result of cuts. Such a high standard of music teaching has never returned to my district. Unfortunately, there are further cuts to come this year. However, it appears that some of the Opposition's arguments are perhaps beginning to register. Recent meetings with the Minister have achieved some results and there are signs that the SSAs will be reorganised in future. Perhaps we can look forward to a new regime. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will say that the new regime will encompass not only new data from the 1991 census returns, but a new formula for SSAs.
I have complained about SSAs on a number of occasions, and before rehearsing the arguments again I
376
shall make a few general remarks. In the 1994–95 financial year, a new system using up-to-date data may be introduced, but that still means that my authority will have three to four years on a low revenue support grant. I should hate to think that my authority will have to start from that position when the new regime is implemented. I hope that we shall look at the matter afresh and consider Barnsley?s needs as a whole, rather than using the current financial year?s budget as the starting point for any new system of calculation.
We need a more accurate assessment of need. The Minister said that unemployment could be taken into account as a sign of need in a district. Perhaps he will confirm that in his winding-up speech. In my region, that factor is most apparent as Barnsley has a higher than average level of unemployment. It has been affected by the decision of the President of the Board of Trade to close more collieries. If those closures take place, my district will be badly affected. The Minister has heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the number of redundancies throughout the nation which could result from the cuts in local government finance.
This year, my authority will still be capped at an artificially low level. The standard spending assessment does not take account of my district?s needs. Future restructuring will repeat the errors of the past as the lion?s share of the funding will go to large conurbations such as Manchester, Liverpool and Merseyside, once again leaving the metropolitan districts at the bottom of the pile when funds are allocated. Future restrictions will also continue artificially to inflate the Conservative-controlled London areas, such as Wandsworth and Westminster.
For the past three years that I have spoken in these debates, I have asked why Barnsley—my authority—always figures at the bottom of the list for metropolitan districts. I have never received an adequate response. The last time I asked the President of the Board of Trade, who was then the Secretary of State for the Environment, he said that someone had to come bottom of the list. I appreciate that, but why is it my authority rather than anyone else's? The right hon. Gentleman could not see the problem with the formula for calculating SSAs, which counts against medium-sized and mining authorities, classing them as low-need authorities when they should be assessed as authorities with moderate needs, especially after the recent decisions affecting coal mining districts.
Every time I have spoken in these debates I have mentioned the research undertaken into the calculation of SSAs. Initially we commissioned research from Coopers and Lybrand; then we commissioned more from Newcastle university. The latest research comes from Salford university. Each time, the research has been presented to the Department with a request that the Department consider it and its implications for the SSAs. The research shows clearly that the formula discriminates against some authorities. I refer particularly on this occasion to the so-called Webber-Craig authorities—seven authorities of similar size and make-up. I believe that Ministers are well aware of them.
Time and again the Government have ignored this research and have carried on using the same formula for the SSAs. One can only conclude that they are quite happy to discriminate against Labour-controlled mining authorities and quite happy that we should continue to receive levels of grant lower than those to which we feel that we are entitled.

377
One of the problems is that the formula uses proxies as indicators of need. Ethnicity, for example, is one such proxy. The incidence of one-parent families is another. These are looked at instead of looking at actual need—at poor health, unemployment and economic need. The ethnicity factor used in the calculation appears in eight different blocks. That means that if a local authority has only a small number of ethnic inhabitants in its area—mine has only a small number—that fact is taken into account eight times over, and the SSA will register correspondingly low— despite the fact that this is a proxy indicator which bears no relation to the real need of an authority.
I believe that the Secretary of State acknowledged my next point following my intervention earlier. I refer to the wide gap between the top authorities and the lower ones. The Secretary of State asked where we would find the extra money. I say that we do not need ?extra? money. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham gain far more grant than metropolitan areas such as mine. On average, Manchester receives 70 per cent. more grant than Barnsley, as I have pointed out year after year. The gap is far too wide. Why are Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside allowed 70 per cent. more money to provide a standard level of service? It is crazy.
Birmingham does not even spend up to its SSA. I understand that it spends £35 million per year on its publicity budget alone. That is equal to a quarter of Barnsley's entire budget. Something must be wrong with the calculations. SSAs should be based on indicators of need, to provide a standard level of service. I remind the Government what the then Secretary of State for Health said on 20 February 1990, when he pointed out that the standard spending assessment is not a target at which local authorities should aim, nor is it a level to which they are obliged to reduce if they want to spend above it: it is for local government to determine what it will spend on its services, and it will be answerable to the electorate for the resulting charges.
Fine words, but they have now been proved rubbish, as the Government will not allow local authorities to be answerable to their electorates for their charges. SSAs have become the method by which the Government cap local authority expenditure. So the Government determine what local authorities spend.
The Salford university research was the latest piece of research that my authority submitted to the Government. I confess that I do not understand it—its statistical language is beyond me—but I am assured by those who do understand it that it is cogent, logical and correct.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be shy or reticent about admitting that he does not understand all the figures. I am sure that many of our colleagues in the House feel exactly the same. I am sure, too, that the sentiment that he has just expressed will be echoed throughout the length and breadth of this country. We must therefore work to make the figures comprehensible. I hope that I may have the chance to say a few words on that subject later in the debate.
Mr. Illsley: If the hon. Gentleman would like a copy of the research from Salford, I should be happy to give him it. If he can find his way through it and understand it, perhaps he will drop me a line to explain it. I agree with him that the information is complicated, and the research
378
submitted by Salford university to the Government is even more complicated than the SSA calculations. It is a highly detailed mathematical document which I do not confess to understand, any more than I understand everything about local government finance. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the jargon in these reports should be clarified.
I should like to offer one or two examples of how these calculations are arrived at. The additional needs calculation runs as follows:
?The sum of:

(i) 1.5 multiplied by CHILDREN OF LONE PARENTS (as defined below); and

(ii) 1.5 multiplied by CHILDREN OF CLAIMANTS (as defined below); and

(iii) The proportion of children aged under 18 in private households who were born outside the United Kingdom, Ireland, the USA or the Old Commonwealth, or whose head of household was born outside these areas, calculated using information from the 1981 Census.

CHILDREN OF LONE PARENTS
The proportion of children aged under 18 in private households containing a lone parent family, calculated using information from the 1981 Census.
The children's social index is calculated thus:
CHILDREN'S SOCIAL INDEX
The sum of the following factors (each of which is calculated to 4 decimal places):
(i) CHILDREN OF LONE PARENTS (as defined above for the Education block); minus 0.1305, and then divided by 0.0358; and?—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I ask him to bear in mind that these SSAs are less complex than their predecessors. That much, I think, is conceded all round. Secondly, most of an SSA is backed up by independent research which will sometimes produce some fairly complex calculations.
Mr. Illsley: Is that why the Government are thinking of altering the SSAs in 1994–95? Perhaps all the research has not been wasted in that case, and we may look forward to a better system.
Mr. Betts: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main findings of the Salford study was that, in changing from the grant-related expenditure assessment system to the standard spending assessment system, the Government sacrificed accuracy for the extra simplicity to which the Minister referred?
Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend is an expert in local government finance and I defer to his greater knowledge. I am sure that what he says is true. In simplifying the GREAs we have perhaps lost out somewhere along the way. In any case, perhaps the Government will now realise that the indicators used are wrong. They must be more closely targeted on the needs of particular areas.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures are ridiculous, based as they are on information 12 years out of date? That information does not relate to the needs of the present day. Things have moved on a great deal since the 1981 census—one thinks of care for the elderly and care for children. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the assessments are nonsense.
Mr. Illsley: I do entirely. I hope that when the Government examine the 1991 census data they will also consider different economic indicators for the SSAs—and that they will not accept 1992–93 as the starting point for

379
authorities which have been badly affected by their SSAs in the past three years. My hon. Friend's constituency of Doncaster, North contains one of the authorities which has been the subject of initial capping. We have been pegged low over the past three years because we started low. I hope that when the new formula is introduced we shall not be left at the bottom of the pile.
According to Salford university research, the SSAs are based on information which is narrow, unrealiable and of questionable relevance. They fail to recognise the problems facing coalfield areas: relatively high unemployment and relatively low educational attainment. I do not know why the university uses the word "relatively". Educational attainment in my area is low and I make no apology for saying that. I disagree with the Government's figures because I think that they are poor indicators of educational attainment, but school examination tables and results on the testing of seven-year-olds show that my authority is at the bottom. More help in education should be used as an indicator of need.
My area suffers from industrial dereliction and needs economic regeneration. The problem will be made worse if the collieries close this year. It is a low-income area with relatively high mortality and a high incidence of chronic illness. The Salford university study states:
?A degree of error … consistently disadvantages a number of authorities. The indicators used to characterise need come from a narrow and highly intercorrelated range. There is a strong case for the replacement, removal or downgrading of several indicators.?
I shall give some examples of how variation affects my authority. I stress that there is an enormous variation between the top and bottom ranked authorities in terms of SSA, especially in metropolitan areas. For the first time this year, my local authority has moved from bottom place. I repeat that I am asking not for increased total funding for local government but for a reorganisation of funding.
Surely Manchester does not need 70 per cent. more funding than my area to provide the same services. I will give a concrete example. The implied spending on a 300-pupil primary school in my constituency is £534,000 but in Manchester it is £662,000. The implied cost for an 800-pupil secondary school in my area is £2,082,000 but for Manchester it is £2.5 million. Those are large differences. Does Manchester really need 24 per cent. more than my authority does to fund a 300-pupil primary school? The difference would pay about seven additional teachers.
I have spoken about the Tory-controlled boroughs of Westminster and Wandsworth. The SSA for a primary school pupil in Westminster is £2,741 while in Barnsley it is £1,793. The implied spending on a 300-pupil primary school in Westminster is £822,000 but in Barnsley it is £534,000. For a secondary school in Westminster the amount is £3,193,000, while in Barnsley it is £2,082,000. That shows that the school in Westminster costs £1,111,000 more than the one in Barnsley. Why does Westminster need that much more to fund a similar school? I have been asked for three years why London boroughs have far more funding than mine.
The same disadvantages apply in social services. I shall use as a basis the social services SSA per child at risk. The figure for Manchester is £2,168,000 per annum and for
380
Barnsley it is £1,202,000. Why does Manchester need £1 million, or 80 per cent., more than my authority to provide a standard service? The first two pages of the RSG report states that the SSAs are designed to show the funding for a standard level of service.
We have complained time and again about these enormous differences. I spoke about ethnicity being used as an indicator in eight sub-blocks. If a borough is low in one block, it is deemed to be low in all eight. We are at the bottom of the table. Proxies are also used. There has been a fall in employment in my constituency since 1981. We witnessed the 1984–85 miners strike and the run-down in employment has been mainly in mining. Some 20,000 to 25,000 jobs have gone. Data from 1981 are no longer relevant, but we are receiving grant based on the 1981 census.
Research shows that Barnsley is not a low-need authority as the Government tend to believe. It has at least moderate needs. We rank low on ethnicity and on people over the age of 85. Barnsley has a history of mining, which means that the number of people who live to the age of 85 is lower than in other comparable areas. In addition, because of mining, there is a high incidence of respiratory diseases among people between the ages of 50 and 65. However, the SSA takes no account of that. We rank high on standardised mortality rates because there is a high proportion of ill health in the age groups that I have mentioned. In my area, long-term illness and unemployment are well above the national average.
Ethnicity is a component of a number of indicators. The additional educational needs indicator shows that ethnic minorities do better than local people. I mentioned that in the corresponding debate last year. Research has shown that there is no longer a need to overcompensate for ethnic minorities. The all-ages social index leads to a classic finding. That index, which is a measure of social deprivation, gives a lower score to Barnsley than to Hampshire and Oxfordshire, and the children's social index scores Barnsley's needs lower, for example, than Hampshire, Oxfordshire and West Sussex. Who are we kidding? How could anyone be convinced that my authority has less social deprivation than Hampshire, Oxfordshire and West Sussex? That is a classic example of SSAs being completely wrong.
I shall skip the health indicators because many hon. Members are waiting to speak and simply mention standardised mortality rates, limiting long-term illness, and low birth-rate indicators. Much research has been carried out in my constituency and the results are there if the Government wish to consider them. Audit Commission studies have shown that my authority is not a high but a moderate spender, but its needs are simply not covered by the SSA.
I shall now deal with the budget for the fire and civil defence authorities. The Minister nods. I know that he is aware of my concern, because I have made representations to him. He knows that the fire service in my area—and, indeed, throughout South Yorkshire—has again been given an SSA lower than that of any other fire and civil defence authority. It is lower than those of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear.
I know that you have an interest in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire fire authorities have the lowest SSA per head, and that is proving detrimental. We have met the Minister, and representatives from the Home Office; only last week,

381
South Yorkshire's chief fire officer visited the Minister to try to convince him of our needs. We are now approaching the levels recommended by the Home Office: we do not want to fall below those levels, and we hope that the Government will take fire authorities into account when setting SSAs.
I am reluctant to talk about cuts. I well remember the Secretary of State?s reference to a parade of bleeding stumps in 1990; I shall never forgive him for that comment, which has remained in my mind ever since. We had to make severe cuts in Barnsley. Now we shall have to cut £11 million from our budget, which will be rather difficult. I have a document listing the authority?s own suggestions for cuts; I will give just two examples.
Every local authority residential home in Barnsley is to close in April, and a complete ending of the school meals service is being considered. In an area of high unemployment such as mine, that is a desperate measure. I am not pleading, or parading bleeding stumps; I am past that stage—I have been here for three years, pleading for better funding for my authority.
These will be serious cuts, which will affect my constituency greatly. I hope that there will be a different SSA calculation for 1994–95; I also hope that we shall receive additional help for 1993–94.
7.22 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye at a comparatively early hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and to take part in the same debate as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), who is a neighbour of mine: I completely surround his constituency. With respect, I am glad that I do, because I hope to contain the spread of the Liberal tendency in the area.
There is no doubt that this is a tight settlement. It needs to be, if we are to contain the alarming rise in PSBR. The settlement, which amounts to £33.45 billion of central Government support, will enable local government to spend some £40 billion this year; that is the largest amount that local government has ever spent in this country. It is roughly a quarter of our total gross domestic product. Any talk of cuts from Opposition Members simply does not ring true.
A week or two ago, in answer to a question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told me that the total local authority debt now stood at £54.4 billion. That is a fantastic figure, which has risen at an alarming rate since the 1980s. We shall have to do something about it.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the way in which SSAs affect various authorities. A number of my constituents have written to me about the problem, which has also been raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. As I shall demonstrate, one of the main reasons for it is the indebtedness of those authorities.
I am aware that local authority treasurers can do clever things with debt swaps and swapping money from one account to another and back again, and lending money in one account to another account at a higher rate of interest. Nevertheless, that £54.4 billion must be serviced each year, by each local authority that is in debt. My authority, Gloucestershire county council—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham—is complaining that
382
this year's SSA is roughly £10 million short of what it thinks it needs to spend. Having obtained some statistics from my hon. Friend the Minister, I have discovered that Gloucestershire's debt is £124.4 million. Gloucestershire is a comparatively small shire council.
Mr. Ken Purchase: It is all very well to talk about local authorities? debt, and Gloucestershire may be a good case in point. However, the hon. Gentleman really ought to take into account the considerable assets of local authorities. When we draw up a balance sheet on the assets and liabilities of an organisation, we look at the net result—and I opine that the ratio of local authority assets to local authority debt is probably 10 or 20 times the amount that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That puts local authorities in a very strong position. The hon. Gentleman must remember that the debt to which he refers was incurred to accumulate capital assets for the benefit of local communities.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was coming to that. The £124.4 billion of debt must be serviced. The hon. Gentleman is right: Gloucestershire county council has considerable assets. It has some 7,000 acres of valuable agricultural land.
As the hon. Member for Cheltenham has told us, he was part of a joint delegation that complained to my hon. Friend the Minister about the SSA. I was not there, but I was given a report of what took place. One of the questions that my hon. Friend asked the delegation was what would be the expected savings from capital sales of assets this year. The authority was not able to give a figure, although it had prepared its proposed budget. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed local authorities great flexibility for this financial year in the way in which they spend their capital receipts; yet that authority had not calculated the amount that it would save this year. Debts are an on-cost, which local authorities must service.
From another parliamentary answer that I received the other day, I discovered that some 14 local authorities were debt-free. There was a slight contretemps over the figures: another source said that eight of those authorities were indebted to some extent. However, 14 are listed in the answer. I looked up the authorities, to establish their political complexion. It so happens that 11 are Conservative; the City of London is non-political—[Laughter.] It is non-political as listed. The others are hung councils. The only one that is not Conservative-controlled—even in the overall sense, as a hung council—is Ryedale, which is controlled by members of the SDP, whoever they are. [HON. MEMBERS: ?They are all in the Lords.?] I think that they have disappeared to another place.
In an effort to enlighten the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Nort-East (Mr. Purchase)— I am glad to see that he is enjoying my speech; he may not enjoy it quite so much in a moment—I decided to try to find out which party was most effective at running local government. I came up with some interesting statistics, which I have not pulled out of mid-air. I discovered that 16 of the 20 authorities with the highest community charge were Labour controlled. I then discovered which were the top 20 worst collectors of the community charge. Not surprisingly, 15 of them—
Mr. Purchase: I bet they will be Labour.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is very good at anticipating. There is a good long list that he can anticipate. When I give him a category, he can tell me how many of them are Labour.
I decided to discover which were the bottom 20 authorities for rent arrears, and 16 out of the 20 were—
Mr. Purchase: Labour.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you. I also discovered which of the bottom 20 had the most vacant dwellings.
Mr. Purchase: If I were you, I would take the money and not open the box.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If I was a betting man, it would be a certainty. I would not have to open the box; there would be no point. Seventeen out of the 20 were—oh, the hon. Gentleman has gone quiet all of a sudden.
I also considered manpower. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is very keen on employing more people. I wanted to see how effectively local authorities are run, and whether that depends on the level of manpower. I discovered that the six authorities employing the most manpower per 1,000 of the population were, needless to say, Labour. Manchester is at the top of the list, employing 52 full-time workers per 1,000 head of the population compared to Wandsworth's mere 17. The message is that Labour is inefficient.
The indebtedness of local authorities is an important factor, so I also looked up the 20 most indebted local authorities; needless to say, I discovered that 18 out of the top 20 were Labour. That includes the city of Birmingham, which was originally going to announce 3,000 redundancies, then 1,000, and now I do not know how many. The Labour city council has a staggering debt of £1.8 billion.
Mr. Purchase: I told you.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: You did, you were very clever at anticipating.
It shows that large city authorities have to spend more than they need to because of years and years of mismanagement. Conservative councils, especially if they are debt-free, are superbly run and offer a high level of efficient local services. However, Labour councils cost you more—they are very liberal with your money.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I hope that I shall not misquote him, but I am sure that he will tell me if I do. He said that he would be very reluctant to set a budget which would involve job cuts. Surely, no local authority will set the same budget every year, allow a bit for inflation, add a little and then say that it must implement huge cuts when it cannot get that amount. It must consider the services that it has to provide, decide what it needs to spend and see whether it can provide the services more efficiently.
I use Gloucestershire county council?s figures as an example. The Conservatives lost control of the council in 1985, when it had a debt of £26 million, but, when the Liberals took control in 1985, the debt almost doubled, to £46.5 million in one year.
Mr. Nigel Jones: May I correct the hon. Gentleman who entirely surrounds me? Gloucestershire county council has never been under Liberal Democrat control. It has been a hung council since 1985 and currently operates the rather curious arrangement of a Conservative-Labour alliance.
384
I have two questions. First, there is an outstanding school capital programme of £65 million in Gloucestershire. It increases every year, as we are not building the schools and school extensions. What projects in the hon. Gentleman?s constituency does he think we should delete from that capital programme? The quotation that I read to the House was from the headmaster of a school in his division.
Secondly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Interventions are getting rather lengthy. Bearing in mind the fact that many hon. Members want to catch my eye, it is not fair for hon. Members who have already spoken to take up the time with long interventions.
Mr. Jones: I shall ask a brief second question. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to the Conservative chairman of the education committee, who says that Gloucestershire?s SSA for education is entirely inadequate?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. Gloucestershire county council is hung, but the Liberals had control between 1985 and 1991, so the increase in the debt occurred entirely under their control. We chucked out the Liberal controlling group in 1991. We now have the absurd situation in which the Conservatives and Labour alternate every six months, but we have been able to start to tackle —[Interruption.] It is absurd, because no one party has control without the other party?s agreement.
In view of what I have said about Gloucestershire county council's indebtedness, I have no doubt that, come May and the next local elections, we shall regain control. It would be much more sensible to have Conservative control of Gloucestershire county council to tackle the problem of indebtedness and offer a realistic level of service to the people of Gloucester, which is what we all want.
Before the hon. Member for Cheltenham intervened, I was saying that he spoke about setting a budget for his authority. I have the indebtedness figures for his authority, which we both represent. It is a very small local authority, but has a debt of a staggering £40 billion—[Interruption.] —£40 million. Even so, it is £40 million on a comparatively small budget. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman could not set a budget that would provide the local level of services that he wants.
I suggest that the first thing that the Liberal controlling group on that authority should do is reduce that level of debt, so that it does not have to pay the servicing costs on it and will be able to provide a true level of service to the people of Cheltenham.
Despite what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said, indebtedness is a serious problem which must be tackled. If authorities such as Gloucestershire had the capital receipts that they should have, they would be able to provide a perfectly good—indeed, a superb—level of service within their SSA limit, and there would be no need for the fuss that they are currently generating. Local authority debt is huge, and it means a continuing on-cost to service that level of debt.
7.38 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: This has been a curious debate because, although most of us have been rightly concerned to study the figures and the damage being done to our local authorities by the settlement, hints of a wider debate on the nature of local government have emerged from time to time.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the former leader of Bradford council, raised the issue of councillors and officers and the difficulty of maintaining a distinction between them. He suggested that councillors were for ever trying to take over the role of officers. I am sure that other hon. Members with experience of local government will, on occasion, have found exactly the opposite to be the case. Many officers will feel highly insulted by the hon. Gentleman?s remarks. However, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar made an important point in that regard.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar also made an important point about not allowing the debate to become a slanging match about who has the worst councillors. As he said, all councillors would be tarred in such a debate.
I agreed with about 50 per cent. of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). He made some important wider points about the nature of local government which, at some point, we will have to debate at greater length. I hope that members of the Government Front Bench noted his remarks about centralisation and the great damage that the Government's centralising tendency is causing in what to many people appears to be a systematic attack on the very nature of local government. The right hon. Member for Brent, North also made important points about registration; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. North-East (Mr. Barnes) will wish to take them further.
I want to refer particularly to Lancashire to illustrate what I believe is happening to local government. I accept that some of my colleagues and some Conservative Members have made similar points about their authorities. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has already made half my speech for me.
Many authorities in the north and west of the country —indeed, all authorities other than London, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East and West Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire and Surrey, which benefit from the area cost adjustments—are suffering badly. That issue has already been referred to several times in the debate.
In a reply to a question of mine, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), told me that if the area cost adjustment was redistributed to all authorities in the country, it would amount to £15 per adult. In my case, that would be £15 for every adult in Lancashire. That is a not inconsiderable subsidy from the provinces—if I can call them that—to the south-east. The key point to bear in mind is that that subsidy has continued year after year and has increased each year.
Referring to shire counties for the moment, and trying to compare like with like, if we consider the counties of Essex, Kent, Hampshire and Lancashire, which are more or less the same size—I noted the Secretary of State's
386
comment from a sedentary position that it is all about population—in 1989–90, Essex received £3.5 million from the ACA; in 1992–93, it received £64.2 million. In 1989–90, Kent received £3.5 million from the ACA; in 1992–93, it received £64.1 million—not bad going. In 1989–90, Hampshire received nothing from the ACA; in 1992–93, it received £62.6 million. Obviously, at some point it was discovered that Hampshire was being deprived and that was corrected: good for Hampshire.
In 1989–90, Lancashire received nothing from the ACA. In 1992–93 it received nothing from the ACA, and the same will apply in the coming year. The same applies to Nottinghamshire, Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland, Staffordshire and many others.
In 1986–87, the area cost adjustment was 1.5 per cent. of standard spending assessment. By 1992–93, it had grown to 3.5 per cent. We are talking about tremendously large sums of money. Between 1989–90 and 1992–93, the SSA of Essex has increased by 36 per cent., Kent?s by 37 per cent. and Hampshire?s by 31 per cent. Lancashire?s has increased by 24 per cent. The disparity is even greater for other authorities.
That enormous difference has a ratchet effect. It consistently renders shire counties like Lancashire worse off. I noted with some pleasure the Secretary of State?s comments about considering the matter again this year and I hope that that happens. However, concomitantly, councils in the south and east will become better off relatively speaking.
In 1988–89, Essex, Kent, Hampshire and Lancashire received, within about £10 million, the same SSA. Since 1990–91, the gap between the three southern counties and Lancashire has been growing to the point that at the moment Lancashire's SSA is £100 million below Kent's SSA; –80 million below that of Essex and –25 million below Hampshire's. I suppose that that could be called the politics of envy. If it is, I plead guilty: I am envious of those levels.
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about population is that this year and next year population change has a big influence. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) must consider SSAs per head. He must explain why Lancashire will receive £615 per head next year while Hampshire's figure is £568. The story is not quite the one that the hon. Gentleman is telling.
Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central has already examined the nature of the authorities to which the Minister has referred. He referred to the large urban area in a county like Lancashire which must be considered alongside the ethnicity problem.
In the settlement for shire counties this year, Lancashire?s SSA is increased by 2.1 per cent. In the league table of shire counties, in that respect Lancashire comes 35th of 39. Kent has received a 4.8 per cent. increase and that makes Kent third in the league of 39. Essex has received a 3.9 per cent. increase and is ninth in the league. Hampshire has received a 5.1 per cent. increase and is second in the league.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has made it clear in figures that he has published in recent

387
weeks that, in all shire authorities, Conservative-controlled authorities have received increases averaging 3.7 per cent.; Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities have received increases averaging 3.7 per cent.; authorities with no overall control have received increases averaging 3 per cent. Labour-controlled authorities have received increases averaging 2.2 per cent.
The area cost adjustment is not the whole problem, but it is a substantial part of it. The figures, which are always difficult to extract from the documentation that is being worried over, show a deliberate discrepancy in funding which it is hard not to see as deliberately designed to penalise Labour-controlled authorities and to reward the Tory heartlands. That is corrupt in the same way that pork barrel politics is corrupt in the United States, although the latter is rather better hidden.
The practice signals a Government who are so consumed by vanity and arrogance that they believe that they can shift large amounts of public money away from Labour or non-Tory authorities to Conservative authorities and consistently get away with it. They may be right, because they have got away with it so far.
That practice also signals a fundamental dismemberment of local democracy which is as offensive to many local Conservatives as it is to local and national Labour politicians.
I do not suggest that funding for counties in the south and east should be cut. I believe, as Conservative Members believe—in theory, at least—in levelling up. Obviously, special measures must be taken to take into account the special problems of London. That part of the ACA could be justified, but it should surely come from outside the total SSA settlement. In so far as the ACA allows for supposed extra costs to the south-east shires for items such as police wages, fire service wages and so on, the figure is bogus, as was revealed earlier. In fact, it is a subsidy that is paid by the rest of us to half a dozen Tory shires.
Yesterday, in relation to DAF, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) made it clear what Conservative Members think about subsidies. He said that if we give DAF money to save that firm, we will have to take money from other firms and destroy them. That is precisely what is going on in local government. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here to make the same case tonight.
The ACA is in the front line in the system of bad distribution of public funds, and that system needs to be corrected. Within that system there are many other anomalies. In my county of Lancashire, year after year SSAs for personal social services have been systematically below the average for the country and they become slightly worse each year.
One matter that has niggled me for a considerable time is the funding element in SSAs for under-fives education. It is calculated—I have mentioned this matter in every possible forum—on the basis of the population of under-fives in an authority, not the educational provision for those children. Wild anomalies are apparent. Some of the same counties are involved—is not that strange?
In Lancashire, in 1992–93 21,172 under-fives were provided for in terms of nursery education. Its SSA allowance for that is £22.9 million. In Hampshire, 13,207 under-fives are provided for, and the SSA is £22.7 million,
388
almost the same amount as for Lancashire. In Kent, about half as many—11,100—under-fives are provided for. The SSA for Kent is £22.1 million—very little less than Lancashire's. In Essex, 12,900 under-fives are provided for, and the SSA is £21.63 million. If we take Lancashire's SSA per pupil as £100, we see that Hampshire has £159, Kent £184, and Essex £155. Incidentally, West Sussex would have £230 on the same basis.
The problem is that that is active discouragement for local authorities to provide nursery education, which might be part of the plot—I remember what the previous Secretary of State for Education thought of nursery education. It is a disincentive for a bad provider to provide more, and it is a disincentive for a good provider to continue being a good provider if it is to receive the same amount of money anyway, depending on the number of under-fives in its area. If the under-fives element of SSA were funded equally, Lancashire would get £5.6 million more than it presently does. That would go a long way to solving some of the county?s problems. In every authority in Lancashire, education accounts for more than half its expenditure.
On 16 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) received an answer from the hon. Member for Hornchurch, comparing expenditure per school pupil in those four counties. Boiled down to its essence, the answer showed that, on the basis of expenditure per pupil aged five to 16 inclusive, Essex receives £110 per pupil more than Lancashire does. If funding were level, that would be £20.97 million more for Lancashire. Hampshire receives £33 per pupil, and Kent receives £119 per pupil. If Lancashire were funded on the same basis as Kent, we would be £22.7 million better off —and; yes, we would like it, please.
Wherever one looks in the miasma, one finds such anomalies. Before I became a Member of the House, I used to believe in the cock-up theory of politics. I no longer believe it. The SSA calculation, which gives off an air of technical neutrality—a system that was invented by robotic accountants, remorseless but pure—is in fact subject to arbitrary judgments and adjustments which all too clearly reflect the Government's attitude to people who have the temerity to elect Labour authorities.
A delegation from Lancashire secured a meeting with the Minister at which we debated the problems and raised several anomalies. To save time, I shall not refer to them, but the anomalies have already been mentioned—for example, in relation to the further education adjustment, nursery provision and other elements of ACA. We were able to lift the capping limit by £6 million. It would have made a difference, had our case been upheld, of £47.3 million for Lancashire, given that we would have had to have made virtually no cuts this year. Unfortunately, at the same time, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) pointed out happened to his authority, our SSA was reduced. The capping limit went up and the SSA went down.
The state of affairs that I have been trying to sketch is not a one-off punishment; it is one stage of a progressive process that is forcing Lancashire to its knees. Cheered on by the hon. Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), through capping, the Government forced through £40 million-worth of cuts last year and they are forcing close to

389
another £60 million-worth of cuts this year. That means many redundancies—of course it does— and cuts in discretionary grants which we had to make last year.
I took part in that decision as a county councillor, and I hated it—we all did. It means cuts in home helps, schools, lollipop ladies—you name it. In particular, it means a cut in essential school build in my constituency, and that causes me great agony.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Lancaster called Lancashire bureaucratic. I remind her that the central administration costs for Lancashire are much less than they are in most private industry. However efficient, no local authority can withstand for long the steady cutting of its income and of its allowable spend. The Government know that better than anyone. The nub of their strategy is to make local government impossible.
The bureaucracy we fear is not that of counties and town halls but that of Whitehall, and Marsham street in particular, steadily drowning the country in a sea of red tape and formulae in order to centre all power in the Government. The country will wake up in the not-too-distant future, if it is not careful, and find itself in a centralised tyranny— although perhaps a smiling one—worthy of somebody such as Erich Honecker.
7.58 pm
Mr. Barry Field: I thank you most sincerely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at such a late hour. I know that you have squeezed me in against all the odds because you recognise the peculiar circumstances that the Isle of Wight faces. I should be remiss in my duty if I did not place on record the undying thanks of all my constituents on the biggest of England's offshore islands for the opportunity that you have afforded me this evening.
I wonder whether I might call upon the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) to do me the great favour of standing up for a moment and looking at the Liberal Democrats Benches to see whether one of the Liberal Democrats is lying on the floor. I should not like to accuse the Liberal Democrats of being absent. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will confirm that no Liberal Democrat Members are here this evening.
Mr. Straw: I am saddened to have to confirm that news, which will bring tears to the eyes of Conservative and Labour supporters alike in the Isle of Wight and across the country.
Mr. Field: I shall develop that theme in due course.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) mentioned the Isle of Wight more times than anyone else has this evening. It is the only county council controlled by the Liberal Democrats—and where are they? They are nowhere to be seen. The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn, has confirmed that there is no one on the floor hiding behind the Benches, so they are not present here this evening. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, particularly as the Liberal Democrats are forever telling us that they are the guardians of local government and how they always champion the cause. It is deplorable that none of them is here this evening.
You have heard me say on many occasions in the past, Mr. Lofthouse, that the Isle of Wight is renowned for its dinosaurs and fossils. You may think that I am going back in time, but I have heard a number of hon. Members on
390
both sides of the House make various points about local government finance and the way in which SSAs work. My claim is well established that we on the Isle of Wight have probably been longer at this than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. In 1965, the Edwards committee reported to the equivalent of the Department of the Environment in those days—I think that it was the Ministry of Local Government. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), a former chairman of the Association of District Councils is here this evening and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong.
The Edwards committee concluded that there was a need for an adjustment in local government finance for the Isle of Wight. I have been here for six years and I have mentioned it on every opportunity. I do not apologise to the House for keeping up this tirade because, as we hear so often—and we have heard it again,Mr. Lofthouse —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech and I recognise that the House has spent a lot of time in Committee recently, but on this occasion I am not addressed as Mr. Lofthouse.
Mr. Field: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in future I shall not refer to you by the name by which your dear lady normally refers to you. I apologise for that apparent discourtesy to the Chair. You know me well enough, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know precisely how contrite I am.
This is a long-running saga that I have mentioned at every possible opportunity. I make no apology for that, because I disagree with some Opposition Members who say that we are not dealing with a listening Government. The Isle of Wight has been recommended for unitary authority status by the Local Government Commission. It is something that we have been after for many years. It is necessary to reform the structure of local government on the island, particularly when one considers that it is conservatively estimated that it would result in a saving of £1 million to £1.5 million per annum.
Mr. Straw: We are as interested as the hon. Gentleman is in the proposal for a unitary authority for the Isle of Wight. Does he share my concern that the Local Government Commission has proposed that there should be all-out elections once every four years and does he agree with me, with the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and with many other Conservative Members that accountability on the Isle of Wight and elsewhere will be strengthened if there were a cycle of elections each year with a third of the councillors retiring?
Mr. Field: During the beef scare I was pictured eating the last plate of English roast beef in the House of Commons. When there were particularly poor political comments about the quality of water in the Solent, I took part in a swim and was seen by the BBC drinking the sea water from the Solent. Following those events, there appeared in my local press a short letter which said, ?He eats the beef, he drinks the sea water, now we know what is wrong with him.? Local government needs elections every year like it needs a hole in the head. Controlling parties need a four-year term in order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about local government finance this evening and not elections. Will the hon. Gentleman get back to finance?
Mr. Field: I have got the message, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to answer that point, and I am sure that you would not want me to neglect to point out who started it.
We are dealing with a listening Government. We have had the interim results from our Local Government Commission suggesting that the Isle of Wight should have a unitary authority. Of course, we do not yet know what is in the Secretary of State's mind or whether he will accept the recommendation, but if it does not happen there will be disappointment in all parts of the political spectrum. It will lead to more user-friendly and efficient local government on the island.
The great bedevilment of local government—I know that hon. Members representing metropolitan authorities do not suffer from it as they are already unitary authorities —is that district councils or borough councils get the money and county councils spend it all. The chap who puts the little cross on the little piece of paper with the little pencil, as Winston Churchill said, cannot understand that. The connection between raising income and expenditure has for too long been disjointed in local government and I hope that a unitary authority will resolve that and produce better accountability.
It is easy in such a debate to make political points. I am as tempted as anyone to give a long list of the misdemeanours, as I see them, of the Liberal-controlled county council on the island and the opportunities that would be afforded by a change of administration. However, I do not intend to do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] My hon. Friends may say, "Shame," but I have built my reputation on representing the whole of the island and all its views.
I note that the standard spending assessment has been changed as a result of a change in pupil numbers. We often see the Opposition opposing grant-maintained status and then leaning on the education budget to try to balance the books. I find that quite unacceptable.
We have suffered as a result of the 1991 census. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s there was tremendous population growth on the island. That was interpolated and carried forward, but the 1991 census revealed that the rate of growth had not continued. That caused us some concern. It will come as no surprise whatever that some of my political opponents have tried to blame that on the Government.
I should like to place on record my gratitude and that of the councils on the island for the way in which my hon. Friend the Local Government Minister saw us so promptly just before Christmas, a difficult time of the year for us all. He saw two deputations from the island and we had an extremely good meeting. As a result, I received a letter from my noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who wrote on 27 January confirming that
?Ministers are prepared to consider proposals for changing the distributional arrangements of the SSA, and I know that fire distributional arrangements are on the programme of work for the 1994–95 SSA Working Group. I would urge you to voice your concerns through the Association of County Councils which is represented on the Working Group.?
I have told my hon. Friend in private as well as in public that the Association of County Councils has never supported the Isle of Wight's case and I do not believe that it ever will. Of course the island is something of an anomaly in county council terms, and if the Association of County Councils supports one special case it will set a precedent and have to support many special cases. We
392
understand that, but we had hoped that we were quite exceptional and that we might get the association?s support.
Today, Sir John Banham, the Chairman of the Local Government Commission, has journeyed to the Isle of Wight, where he wished to meet His Excellency the Governor of the island, the chairman of the county council, the local borough council representatives, the chief executives and me. I was unable to be there because I wanted to take part in this debate this evening.
I shall not take up the time of the House by going through a long list of anomalies and their peculiar effect in our unique constituency. However, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister, in winding up, to confirm to the House that he and I have had conversations about this, that I have written to him, and that in due course he will be writing to me. It is a subject to which I, like many hon. Members in all parts of the House, will be returning on a number of occasions—I hope, ere long, with a unitary authority on the island. I believe that there is a fundamental mismatch in the way that the formula works, as was highlighted as long ago as 1965.
Thank you so much for squeezing me in, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
8.11 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: There are thousands of local councils all over the country which are determined to provide good quality services that meet local needs. They are committed to that task, and it is important that we stick with them and that there is a partnership between local and national government to make that happen. I do not think that talk of corruption within the councils, of whatever type, helps that relationship. We ought to be looking at the positive areas and rewarding and praising the efforts of so many local councillors.
However, there is a bizarre situation in which many of those councillors feel that the Government hold all the cards. It is the Government who decide the SSA, set the cap, decide and define the business rate and decide the amount of revenue support grant.
I was very interested in the Secretary of State?s comment about the SSA, that it was a mechanism for distributing grant. I hope that in winding up the Minister will make it clear that that is the Government?s view of the SSA—a way to distribute grant, not a yardstick, not a seal of approval, to define and defend the amount of Government money to be allocated to councils.
Given the Government?s range of powers, it is not surprising that local councils have very little power to raise their own revenue. In my own county, Nottinghamshire, in the current financial year, only 24 per cent. of revenue is raised locally. Of the remaining 76 per cent., 33 per cent. comes from the business rate and 43 per cent. through the revenue support grant. Given the element available for local discretion, it is not surprising that, if a council wants to provide good quality services or to do something extra, the cost falls on the local taxpayers. The problem is that, given the current small tax base, the smallest tax base of any local council in Europe, the gearing effect, the effect on people who have had to pay the charges, is extremely high.
I have looked with interest at what the Secretary of State has said in the past about capping. He has been keen

393
to talk about local accountability. At one time he talked about capping as a mere reserve power, and he went on to say that it was important that we used rarely, and only
?to protect charge payers of an area against extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible local authorities.?—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
What has happened to the Secretary of State?s views over the past five years, because it is quite clear from the announcement that he has made that, in effect, virtually every council in England is now capped? There is not even a very limited element of local discretion.
Given this, it is not surprising that it is very difficult to find people who will become local councillors. The capping powers announced this time are the most stringent powers that have ever been taken. It is quite clear to me that, given the severity of the cap, there will be cuts in services and expenditure by the majority of councils this year.
Those cuts spring directly from the Government. They hold all the strings and they pull all the levers. The revenue support grant is extremely tough. The Secretary of State told us that it was £41.1 billion and that it would be adequate. He told us that it represented 3.1 per cent. growth. We have to compare figures properly. It is quite clear to me and to people working in local councils and local authority associations that there is no growth in this year's spending as against next year's planned spending by the Government. In fact, local authorities face a cash squeeze this year—a cash freeze.
We should contrast that with the Government's plans for themselves. Again, it is absolutely clear that, while councils are having a cash freeze—or, in the Government's eyes, mere growth of 3.1 per cent.—the Government's own expenditure is rising by 6.5 per cent. Why are local authorities being singled out for differential treatment? It is interesting that in every Government Department except Defence the rate of growth next year will be greater than that for local authorities.
I am pleased that the Government have done some work on notional figures. There is a feeling, however, that the notional figures proposed for taking money out of further education and out of highway maintenance are overstated. We are pleased that the Minister has listened to representations from Nottinghamshire and has increased its notional amount for FE spending. This is not extra money; it just raises the cap and allows us more flexibility. I draw attention, too, to highway maintenance, where £170 million is being taken out of the settlement and, according to local authority estimates, only £50 million is being spent. Clearly, if their figures are correct, £67 million has been taken away from local authorities.
There are other problems too. The withdrawal of section 11 is another burden for local authorities. The urban programme has been frozen and local authorities have been picking that up. In the last few weeks cuts have been announced on emergency planning. If local authorities, local councils, want to do that they have to pick up such things. Then there are insurance problems and, perhaps most particularly, the decision to raise superannuation funds back to 100 per cent. funding, albeit over a period of years. It is important to remember that that was cut to 75 per cent. only a few years ago to lessen the impact of the poll tax, but now local authorities are being told to make up those potential deficits, and it is at the cost of the poll tax payers.
Let me now consider the years beginning 1994–95 and thereafter. In the next financial year, new census
394
information will be pushed into the settlement. I welcome that. All the new census material will be used in a more basic way in 1994–95. In particular—this point has been made by a number of my hon. Friends—I hope that the area cost adjustment will not just be looked at, but be acted upon. According to my figures, the area cost adjustment has increased from £418 million in 1989–90 to £1.3 billion in 1992–93. That is a rise of 214 per cent.
The work that the Association of County Councils and others have done has highlighted a problem concerning the area cost adjustment. It is clear to me that it overstates the position in London and some south-east counties, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to representations and try to put it on a better footing next year. I estimate that Nottinghamshire county council is paying £24 million for area cost adjustment. They are keeping down the council tax in London and the south-east; they are raising revenue from their own people to keep council tax bills down elsewhere. That cannot be right, particularly if the basis for the area cost adjustment is so badly wrong. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not only endeavour to look at this matter but will be prepared to act on it.
Standard spending assessments are to a large extent the root of the problem. I hope that when we get the new census information we will set it against the SSAs so that we can compare, for example, why the SSA per head in Wandsworth is £1,112, in Westminster is £1,200 and in Ashfield—in Hucknall, for example, a mining village which is experiencing real difficulties at present—is only £675. I defy the Minister to tell us that it is because deprivation and real need are greater in Westminster and Wandsworth than in mining communities in Nottinghamshire. Such an analysis will not stand up.
I issue a challenge. We will look closely at the census data, when they are on a small area statistics basis, and we will compare them with SSAs. I hope very much that there will be a move to give authorities in the north and the midlands a fairer chance.
But, given all the levers and all the strings that the Government push and pull, it is not surprising that sometimes things go wrong. They made a prediction some years ago of a council tax of £400 for a band D property. The prediction now is for £494. Given the settlement that has been made, I believe that the figures in Nottinghamshire will be much higher. For a band D property I do not believe that the figure will be £494. It is entirely a matter for councils themselves, but in Nottinghamshire I believe that the figure at the bottom will be about £590 and that it could go up to £660.
That is because we have a system in which the mechanics and the levers are all in the hands of the Government. It is a system that we must change, and we must change it now, because all over the country people will next year face higher bills than were predicted with lower services than were promised. They face a double whammy: paying more and getting less. Nobody will put up with that system. A similar system killed the poll tax, and, if the Government are not careful, this son of poll tax will run into similar problems.
8.23 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am grateful to be called at this juncture in the debate. While I enjoy the reputation of not being entirely uncritical of Government

395
policy, may I tell my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that as regards tonight's debate I make no criticism whatever. Unfortunately, for reasons which I hope will become apparent in the course of my speech, I am unable to offer any praise, much as I would like to do so.
I am pleased to see in his place this evening my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), a fellow Salopian. I am sure that he will forgive me if I say that we make no special pleas from Shropshire. Shropshire is not a county noted for being narrow-minded or mean-spirited. I remind the House that Shropshire, being the cradle of the industrial revolution, is the county which gave the nation its ability to generate wealth and power previously undreamed of. Right hon. and hon. Members may care to ponder whether the House should spend a little more of its time considering matters of wealth generation, rather than, as tonight, always considering matters of spending.
I support very much the drive for restraint in public spending. As a nation we need to control what we spend publicly. All that we in Shropshire look for is a fair share of whatever is going, and we have arguments about the methodology which creates the revenue support grants that we are discussing today.
One of our two complaints is centred on the sparsity factor. Our county has a relatively small population, albeit a growing one, and it is spread over a very large area. This creates problems for us, particularly in respect of education. We have made the point consistently to Ministers for a number of years that Shropshire's sparsity factor is not adequately recognised.
The other factor to which we take exception is the area cost adjustment which equally prejudices the settlement for Shropshire. I shall not argue with other hon. Members about whose constituency is at the bottom of the league, but because of the methodology, and principally because of the sparsity factor calculation and the area cost adjustment calculation, Shropshire consistently comes very close to the bottom.
When it comes to the philosophy behind the revenue support grant calculations, I question the belief that absolute fairness can be achieved in these calculations. The realisation is beginning to dawn that in an endeavour to be absolutely fair to everybody we are ultimately fair to nobody. There are books full of equations and calculations, all designed to ensure that every county, every constituency, is treated with equity. I know—the Minister must also know from what has been said in the debate—that that view is not generally shared by hon. Members.
What we are trying to do today is to achieve a modicum of thrift in local government expenditure. I make no apology for using that old-fashioned word. It is perhaps not so well understood today as it used to be, and it is perhaps practised less than it was. We also want to see in local government expenditure not just thrift but accountability; and if we are to achieve accountability we must have intelligibility. Whatever we do must be intelligible to the people who elect councillors and, to an extent, to the same people who elect us to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), in a humorous and thoughtful speech, commented that people are a little confused, because of the structure
396
of local government. When they put their little cross in their little box, they are not quite sure where the boundaries of responsibility begin and end. I contend that if the system—both the organisation of local government and, in particular, its financing—is not intelligible, it will not be accountable. If it is not accountable, there will be no thrift. That is the point that I hope that the Government Front Bench will register. If we are to obtain thrift in local government, we must make the system intelligible so that people can, from a position of understanding, take an honest and genuine interest in what is done in their name.
When I was a county borough councillor I felt that perhaps I was the last of a dying breed. At the time, I was a young business man and was prepared to serve my community. I suspect that people with such a background now are less prepared to give of their time to local government. Perhaps they do not have the inclination to cope with what I refer to as the gobbledegook which is included in so many publications to determine the workings of local government and local government finance.
I cannot equal the humour of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, but I venture to suggest, at the risk of seeming somewhat facetious, that whoever wrote the equation on page 28 of HC422 could match the sense of humour of my hon. Friend. I crave the indulgence of the House to quote the equation, because I should like to see it in Hansard:
"[Q-R+[0.75(S-T)] + [0.5(U-V)] + [0.75(W-Q-S-U)]] x X/Y"
That is wonderful. It is clear as mud.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. Gill: Does the Minister want to intervene and explain the formula to me?
Mr. Redwood: I was about to encourage my hon. Friend to read on because it becomes extremely clear. The only problem is that the debate is somwhat limited in time.
Mr. Gill: If I read the following two or three pages, I would find what G, R and so on mean.
Mr. John Biffen rose—
Mr. Gill: Is my right hon. Friend seeking to intervene?
Mr. Biffen: Would my hon. Friend reflect on the disposition of the Government constantly to suspend the 10 o'clock rule? One would have thought that the Government would have suspended the 10 o'clock rule on this occasion so that the debate could continue.
Mr. Gill: That is one of the ironies of life. I point out to my right hon. Friend that in the past few weeks I have spent a lot of time trying to ensure that the Government do not suspend the 10 o'clock rule when they have different intentions. Tonight, we are once again on opposite sides of that consideration.
Mr. Redwood: The Government were not planning to move the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule because they thought that all other hon. Members had read the formula and found it straightforward. I am sure that that is true.
Mr. Gill: As I said in an intervention to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), I am not shy, and I encouraged him not to be shy in saying that we do

397
not understand the matter. I shall tell the House about a lesson I learned in life which perhaps took me longer to learn than it should have done. I was often at the back of the class not understanding anything that had happened. When I picked up courage and asked the simple question—I am, after all, a simple man—the rest of the class erupted because it was the question that they also wanted to ask but were too shy to do so.
Let us ask the simple questions because, at the end of the day, a lot of people are much less intelligent than my hon. Friend the Minister but would like to understand the matter. Such people are deterred by the gobbledegook in the publications. I want to speak a little more about the question of incomprehensibility because such incomprehensibility acts as a deterrent to accountability.
I remind the House of the sensible words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who instanced the cases of corruption in local government. There is bound to be corruption if those who are supposed to control finances do not understand and find things incomprehensible. Incomprehensibility acts as a deterrent not just to accountability but to attracting talented councillors, and it acts as a deterrent to members of councils in controlling their officers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar also referred to maladministration. One has great sympathy with members of councils who, in controlling the officers of the council, are absolutely dependent on the advice and professional opinion of officers before they make decisions. Hundreds of councilors—I might also add Members of Parliament—will be dependent on the interpretation that borough treasurers and district council treasurers put on the publications that we are debating today. In other words, because of the complexity of the calculations, the initiative is very much with the officers and not with the councillors.
As a Member of Parliament, I feel less informed and authorit- ative on such subjects than I should like to be. In such circumstances, it follows that I am less helpful to the cause that the Government are propounding because of that lack of understanding of the finer points in these papers.
Mr. Redwood: To answer my hon. Friend seriously, the purpose of the formula is to work out the taxable capacity in each different part of the country. The reason why the formula must include halves and three quarters as some of the variables detailed in the document is that some people get discounts and exemptions. Those discounts and exemptions are reflected in the formula. We cannot simply take all the houses and say that that is the tax base. We must adjust the formula to show whether people are chargeable. As a result, we get a fair method of measurement around the country of the taxable capacity in each place.
Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution. I hope that Ministers will not be too defensive or over-protective of the status quo because there are other ways of doing this. I suggest that those other ways would be better understood by councillors and those who elected them. If we are to have accountability, it is important that people thoroughly understand what councils are doing. They must not depend on paid officials of the council to tell them what they think the councils are doing.
398
I will labour the point about incomprehensibility because at the end of the day it is a deterrent to good local government and, obliquely, it brings national government and national politicians into disrepute. I take the view that one should not criticise anything unless one has something positive to put in its place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that. In the past, I have often made submissions to the Government in an honest endeavour to make a system more comprehensible, simpler, more straightforward and, above all, understood by all of us, not just in this place but in council chambers and the electorate.
I suggest to the Minister that we should pay more than lip service to the principle of subsidiarity. It would be an enormous boost to the Government's credibility, especially in the context of the Maastricht debate, if we implemented the principle of subsidiarity in the United Kingdom. It would be a boost to the morale of councillors if they felt that they had not just the responsibility for discharging the various functions with which they are charged but total authority to do those things.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been involved in the commercial sector and he knows as well as I that the cardinal rule of good management is to place authority in the same pair of hands in which responsibility is placed. If there is one theme running through all this, it is that we should apply the principle of subsidiarity and ensure that councillors are given not merely the responsibility for functions but the authority to discharge them.
I suggest that the Minister should look hard at the scope for taking district councils out of the revenue support grant equation entirely and making them raise, through the council tax, 100 pennies for every pound that they spend— [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) laughs, and I understand why—it is because it is the first time that he has heard that radical proposal and he has not had time to think it through. When he has— hopefully he will read what I have said in tomorrow's Hansard—he may conclude that the Member for Ludlow had a point. I hope that he will give it further consideration. We are all open-minded people in this House and we like to consider new ideas.
In proposing that to the Minister, I must also warn him that there may be some mismatch if district councils are charged with that responsibility; he must try to ensure that the functions that councils are charged with are capable of being sustained by the local tax base.
The present review of local government should put the horse in front of the cart and not vice versa. First, it should decide what it wishes the functions of local authorities to be. Only when that has been decided can the organisational pattern of local government be decided, and thus its financing.
I remind the House of the three important words: let us make finance intelligible, for if it is intelligible we can make it accountable, and if it is accountable it will be thrifty.
8.42 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I shall not take long, as I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate.
The hon. Member for Ludlow spent a great deal of time regaling the House with his difficulties in understanding

399
the documents before us. I hope that I shall be able to shed some light on them and to explain the motives and the politics behind the formula on page 28 that he misquoted.
The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about fairness, as did the Secretary of State, who said in his opening speech: ?You have got to be fair to local tax payers.? That is from the right hon. and learned Member who was responsible for introducing the poll tax—the man responsible for introducing the council tax. He wanted to get rid of the rates because, as he told The Financial Times:
"A property tax is not fair."
That was the justification for introducing the poll tax. The very same man is getting rid of the poll tax and introducing another council tax.
The hon. Member for Ludlow went on at great length about thrift, but it sticks in my throat to hear anyone from the Conservative Benches talking about thrift after the Government squandered £14 billion on the poll tax. How can they possibly talk about thrift with a straight face?
Fairness is not a characteristic of the new council tax. How can a tax be fair when single people get an automatic 25 per cent. discount on their council tax bills simply because they live alone? They could be millionaires or be living in band G houses, but they get a 25 per cent. discount, while a struggling family which is trying to get by just above income support level has to pay the full whack. That is not fair.
The politics behind the formula is that the Conservatives want to depress public spending. They are open about it. They want to cut public provision, as they do not believe in it—if it can be privatised, then privatise it.
The formula is another ideological attack on local government. Although we hear about efficiency and effectiveness all the time, it is not about efficiency. It is about transferring provision from the public to the private sector wherever possible. It is not merely happening to local government. Post offices and job centres are closing. Public provision is contracting everywhere, because that is the Government's ideological mission.
The tax is also a threat to democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the erosion of democracy and the fact that councillors now lack controls because of the functions that have been transferred to what has been dubbed the ?new magistracy?—to shadowy characters who have not been elected but now have control of vast amounts of public money.
The revenue support grant settlement will mean major job losses. In my neck of the woods, it is about as welcome as a dose of anthrax. Job losses have spiralled since the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister in November 1990. There were 1,708 unemployed people in Pendle then, but the figure has spiralled to more than 3,000, and that was before the 574 job losses announced last week at Smith and Nephew.
On standard spending assessments, I shall not go over the ground that has been adequately covered by my hon. Friends the members for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), who is no longer in the Chamber. The SSAs were supposed to be an objective measurement of need. Because Government grant follows them, they are important.
400
The present Secretary of State for the Environment told the Association of District Councils conference on 17 September 1987:
?Our plans for the new grant system?—
the SSA—
?will ensure stability, accountability and a great deal more simplicity.?
He said the same about the poll tax, and he got that wrong. The new stable system that he was describing a few years ago is now under review by his Department and by the Audit Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West delivered a powerful critique of the flaws of the SSA system, which does not simply reflect need—whether in Lancashire, West, Barnsley or anywhere in the north of England—but tips resources to the south and the south east. The formula makes no allowances for unemployment or structural change. In my area we have lost 20,000 jobs in the textile industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned the incredible changes in the mining industry in his area, which are also not reflected in the formula, yet it is supposed to be fair.
The SSA methodology is really suspect when it comes to members of our communities who come from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. We were told that, wherever possible, information from the 1991 census is being used, but in the case of those members of our community they are using information from 1981. The information there is 12 or 13 years out of date.
What does this mean to an area like mine in north-east Lancashire? In Pendle, in 1981, 6.9 per cent. of the population came from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. By 1991-these figures are not incorporated in the formula-the proportion had gone up to 9.9 per cent. In other words, there was a difference of a full three percentage points, yet this is not built into the figures.
Earlier, there was a discussion about the census. The Secretary of State or one of his friends tried to argue about the accuracy of the census, but we all know from experience that there has been a haemorrhage of voters from the register because of the poll tax. I am not the only person who says so: the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys itself says the same. That office says that the 1991 census is 500,000 people light. I suspect that many of those people live in inner-city areas-areas that tend to be represented by Labour politicians.
The Secretary of State has said that the new grant system provides accountability. What a joke. I want to quote from my local paper, the excellent Lancashire Evening Telegraph. Many of my hon. Friends know the paper and no doubt agree with me about its excellence. This is what my local paper, on 13 January 1993, said about the accountability that the Secretary of State trumpets:
?This drastic surgery on our local services— police, schools and the rest—has really nothing to do with local government.
The cuts are taking place by government decree—one that insists that, in order to stay below capping levels, the county council has to chop £60 million from its budget.
The only real input our local representives have in this process is to consider the list of horrible options put in front of them—such as fewer police and teachers.?
That says it all. All this talk about democracy—handing power back to the people—is a complete distortion of the truth.
The Secretary of State talked also about simplicity. We all know—the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will

401
appreciate this, as he believes in simplicity—that, the more simple the system, the moire likely it is to contain mistakes. We have got used to rough and ready, back-of-the-envelope stuff from the Government.
My local authority in Pendle had its SSA increased by a miserable £1,000—and that was after my councillor colleagues and I had gone to see the Minister to plead the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) spoke at great length and with great eloquence about Lancashire county council. That council's SSA has gone down from the £866.4 million of November to £865.6 million. As I said earlier, these resources are being tipped from the north to the south of England.
I want to move rapidly to the question of gearing, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). A local authority is not a free agent in this respect. Indeed, 85 per cent. of local government spending is determined at the centre, arid only 15 per cent. by the local authority itself. If a council wants to spend rather more than central Government think it should spend, it has to make colossal increases in the council tax. We have heard a great deal about capping, but that is another story. The gearing is designed to hold public spending down—that is the whole object of the exercise.
Connected with this matter is the whole question of valuations. The valuations have been absolutely botched. It costs about £1.76 to value a property in Pendle. In Lancashire as a whole, the figure is about £1.90. There has been no proper valuation at all. We are going to see an avalanche—I have heard a figure of 1.5 million —of appeals in April when people get their council tax bills.
For example, a pensioner came to see me who lives in a farm cottage one third of a mile from the nearest metalled road and one third of a mile from the nearest street light. His rubbish is not collected by the local council. Before the introduction of the poll tax, he paid about £114 in rates. The couple are just above income support level, and, as their property has been tipped into band C, they will now pay £577. The man told me that he did not have that sort of money. He did not understand what was happening. He though that the new council tax would be a fair replacement for the poll tax. But it is not fair. It is not fair to him, and it is unfair to many other people.
To iron out some of the unfairness, the Government introduced a transitional relief scheme. But we know that that scheme has been massively underfunded. Ministers wanted £1 billion from the Treasury, but they managed to squeeze out about £300 million. This has had a horrendous impact in areas, such as Pendle, that are traditionally low-rated.
When, about a month ago, my colleagues and I went to see the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, we made it absolutely clear to him that the problem was that, even with increases capped, there were some very big percentage rises. We quoted the example of a two-person household in band A—67 per cent. of the people in my constituency live in houses in that band—with transitional relief. Even after the application of the transitional relief scheme, those people will pay 33.7 per cent. more in council tax than they did under the old system.
As I am conscious of the time, I wish to conclude with a word of warning to Conservative Members. It was the Pendle factor, among others, that sank the poll tax.
402
Latterly, my predecessor, Mr. John Lee, was vocal in his opposition to the poll tax. In a low-rated, low-wage, poverty-stricken area, such as mine, the council tax too will have punitive effects.
There is nothing in this financial settlement—nothing in the transitional relief or in the council tax or in the SSAs—to give me, any of my council colleagues or the residents of Pendle any encouragement at all. It is a bad deal for north-east Lancashire and, more importantly, for local government generally.
9 pm
Mr. Roy Thomason: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me as I had not intended to speak in the debate until I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is not now present. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) who is, I believe, the gentleman who is alleged to have invented the loan swaps that have caused so much grief and difficulty for many local authorities.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The member of Hammersmith and Fulham council who introduced it to loan swaps was Mr. Kim Howe, a Conservative leader of the council in 1981–82. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the history of loan swaps in Hammersmith and Fulham, he should read the independent report, commissioned by the council and written by Mr. Van Veeder QC. It completely exonerates all Labour members of any nefarious dealings.
Mr. Thomason: I am delighted that the answer is given in such a pat manner that it must have been repeated on numerous occasions.
I wish to say a few words in praise of local government, as not enough is said here in support of the men and women who give such valiant service in the councils of England, Wales and Scotland. It is right that we should put down a marker noting what they do. Some 17,000 or 18,000 people serve in that way. It is inevitable that a few of them— whatever their party or political complexion—will prove to be rotten apples in the barrel. However, the country should express gratitude for the way in which the vast majority of them give of their time and service.
Some of those people feel that they have a constitutional role in local government that overrides the views and policies that may be dictated by and originate from the House and the national Government of the country. I say that because I recall the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) attacking me vigorously on that issue not many months ago.
Local government is subservient to national, central Government. That has always been my view. However, again and again in the debate it has been argued that there is some divine right in local government to determine national policies that may run contrary to those of central Government. That has rarely been, and never should be, the case.
We do not live in a federal authority. There are plenty of European precedents of local government or inter-state government shaping the form of national policies, but that is not so in our country. The German länder, the Italians and even the French, to a lesser extent, have a history of small states coming together in relatively recent years to create a nation. They consider that their local government

403
—in the sense that it is a federal organization— has rights to determine national policy. Such a belief is alien to the history and principles of this country.
Local government in this country does not have the right to demand expenditure levels contrary to the determined policy of the Government, supported by the House and the other place. The decisions must be made here. We should resist the temptation to give local government the right to seek to set expenditure levels in excess of the priorities that have been debated and determined in the Chamber. There seems to be some Opposition Members who believe that local government should embark on social engineering of some form. Such issues should be determined here in the Chamber, as they are matters of national, not local, priority.
The standards of probity that we should expect of local government, and that we so often see, have unfortunately fallen short in a number of authorities. That is true not just of individual members about whom accusations have been made or are being processed, but of some local administrations. That ought to worry Opposition Members, since almost all those local authorities are under Labour control.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in a previous incarnation, I used to meet him in my capacity as a National and Local Government Officers Association official at the Association of District Councils, over which he presided. We both had to deal with the gross mismanagement of an organisation called the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee, which cost district councils many thousands of pounds, which is probably still having to be paid over. I still have the files, and I remember that this happened under the stewardship of the hon. Gentleman and other members of the ADC. It is wrong of him to talk about mismanagement by Labour local authorities when there is a whole raft of evidence—he is well aware of it— of wrongdoing in LAMSAC, over which he, Lady Anson and others exercised a considerable degree of control.
Mr. Thomason: Since he has the files, the hon. Gentleman ought to recall the facts a little better. He should remember that LAMSAC, on whose board of management I never served, included among others representatives of an organisation known as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—those members were prominent in its organisation and they came from the Labour party, as did representatives from other local government organisations. So the body was not stamped with any political mark, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I appreciate that he may have lost himself in those files, which he seems to have retained to produce for events like this one, but he really must try to do better next time.
Earlier, I mentioned the high standards of probity in most local government. There has, however, been an appalling lapse of administrative control—not necessarily wrongdoing by individuals—in authorities such as Lambeth, Hackney and Sheffield, not to mention Monklands in Scotland. Those of us who want local government to do well and who want to be able to support it believe it fair to criticise those lapses of administration
404
and sort them out. It concerns me that the Labour party seems slow to put its colleagues in local government right even though they have obviously gone wrong.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said that Sheffield had won the support of some beauty parade that appeared in the Local Government Chronicle, which showed that it was a well managed authority. I seem to recall that the article in question was based on a survey of the views of local government officers, not on external appraisal by a body such as the Audit Commission. Those local government officers were mostly in the employ of local authorities, such as Sheffield city council, controlled by the Labour party.
It follows that Labour Members should check their facts before claiming examples of good management practice. In this case, the hon. Member for Attercliffe cited an authority that had spent £10 million—lost £10 million —on the student games, and which is now spending money on providing offices for Members of this House.
There have been allegations in this debate of rigging the population formulae for assessing revenue support grant. Extraordinarily enough, Opposition Members suggested that the population of certain parts of the country was being under-estimated because their residents were trying to avoid registration for community charge purposes. It is surprising that some hon. Members think that many of their constituents sought to avoid the legitimate processes of community charge registration. Those hon. Members must answer to their electorates for that.
Opposition Members fail to understand the significance of population increases and movements in terms of the estimates and appraisals in the RSG calculations. We all know, and some hon. Members will know to their cost as the parliamentary boundaries are changed, that inner cities are being depopulated, a trend that has continued for many decades. Conversely, some urban fringe and rural areas are seeing a population explosion.
Local government in such areas has to provide a substantial infrastructure to support the increased population. New schools and roads have to be constructed, and even new social services offices have to be built. Therefore, the demands on local government in the expanding parts of the country are very much greater than in areas of declining population.
There is no gerrymandering when revenue support grant properly reflects population changes that are the inevitable product of the movement of people. Such movements have continued throughout this country's history, as jobs change their nature and people seek to follow them. It is wrong to complain about grant following population in that way.
It has been said that there will be substantial job losses. There may be some, and we all regret that, but the Opposition and their colleagues in local government are engaging in much scaremongering. We were told that Birmingham city council would lose 1,000 jobs. Only a few weeks ago, the Labour leaders of that council said that they would lose 3,000 jobs. If that trend continues, they will tell us in a few weeks that they are about to take on employees. A review in the Municipal Journal reveals that 22 per cent. of local authorities will take on extra employees. We must avoid histrionics in talking about employment in local government. The truth may be very different overall when the figures are finally known.
Opposition Members spoke about spending. Many tears have been shed over the difficulties that local

405
government will allegedly suffer next year because of the small increase in total standard spending over this year's budgets. The issue is important, because comparisons are being made between this year's budgets and next year's total standard spending. Local government, sometimes for bad reasons and sometimes for good, has spent substantially over its total standard spending in the current year. Is it suggested that that overspend should now be built into the revenue support grant calculations so that it is ratified?
That appears to be the argument, but it is nonsense, because it would mean that every local government overspend in every year would be automatically and retrospectively approved by the Government. That is not on, and the Opposition ought to know it. No Government, whatever their political colour, could possibly ratify past expenditure levels and simply carry them forward as a base for the next year. We must have a level of stability, which must be based on the total spending of the previous year, according to the formula. From that formula, additions are constructed.
Local government needs stability. I entirely support hon. Members' suggestions that area cost adjustments should be examined next year, and I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he is looking at the SSA mechanism. I trust, however, that, in considering any amendments, he will remember that violent changes in grant distribution from year to year should be avoided, just as violent changes in the demands on the individual community charge payer, or council tax payer, should be avoided from year to year.
The hon. Member for Pendle suggested that his constituents would suffer as a result of the imposition of the council tax. He seems to have completely forgotten about transitional relief. The same rules should apply to changes in SSAs and the grants that follow from them year by year.
Opposition Members have talked a great deal of nonsense. The truth is that the Government's proposals are eminently fair and reasonable. They will not make life difficult for local government; I know that my council colleagues of a year or two ago would make the same point. Of course it will be a tough settlement, but every year brings a tough settlement. Every year requires local government to investigate its expenditure thoroughly, and this year will be no exception. I am glad that the majority of local authorities will look at their expenditure carefully, and will seek to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in delivering services. I hope that the few that have not done so in the past will change in the future.
9.16 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: In previous years' debates on the Local Government Finance Report, hon. Members have complained that debate has involved more of the same Tory attacks—more financial restrictions, more cuts in resources, more job cuts and more damage to local authority services.
Today's debate again involves more financial restrictions, more cuts in resources and jobs and more damage to local authority services. However, it differs from the debates of past years. Although such cuts have undoubtedly been made in the past, local authorities in the past have been able to mitigate, at least to some extent, the worst effects of Conservative cuts. They have increased
406
local sources of finance to compensate for central Government cuts; sometimes they have dug deep into their reserves, and—as many of my hon. Friends will know—in numerous cases they have virtually emptied those reserves. They have also attempted to borrow on occasion, in an attempt to defend services and protect the local population.
Few such avenues are now open to authorities, because most borrowing schemes have been decreed to be inoperable. Authorities have lost the potential to tap reserves, and central Government—through severe capping regulations—have taken away their remaining powers to raise additional resources locally.
As the Government well know, the difference between this and previous years lies in the depth and severity of cuts—cuts in services, cuts in jobs on a scale unknown before the current round of local government financial announcements, cuts in virtually every part of the country. I warn Conservative Members to make no mistake— there will be pain in many constituencies, not only in those of my hon. Friends. There will be pain for children whose schools are not properly funded, pain for elderly people when home help services are cut, pain for young people when youth clubs are closed or they have to wait much longer to get a start on housing, and pain for most of us—indeed, all of us—who use roads which will be less well lit and less adequately maintained. There will be pain for almost all sections of the community because, whether hon. Members like it or not, virtually all members of our community are in one way or another dependent on local authority services.
The debate is about that difference in severity compared with previous years. It is about the additional pain that the cuts will inflict, but it is also about the negation of democracy, about denying local communities the right to determine their future and denying people the right to have a say in their community. It is no longer local people who decide what services are provided, what education or social services or what level of road maintenance is required. Essentially, central Government decide those matters.
The 152 Tory Acts relating to local government which have been introduced since 1979 mean that local government can no longer function democratically, and democracy cannot function without local government. It is our democracy which maintains our British way of life and which is infringed by repressive legislation. Ours is the only nation in western Europe and among the industrialised countries which has so much central Government control of local government.
Many other interesting issues have also been raised. The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) showed himself capable of making a reasonable contribution, even though he is a Blackburn Rovers supporter—probably a very depressed Blackburn Rovers supporter—by making a plea for the house owners in his constituency who will suffer through being placed in a high band for the council tax. He said that the situation was worse because of the slump that he detected. He was able to distinguish between a slump and a recession because of his northern roots. The House and his constituents will be grateful for his observations. Certainly, his constituents will be grateful that he cares so much about their economic circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two other useful points on which we can all agree. He spoke about the

407
inadequacy of our registration system for voters. I do not believe that we can have a proper democracy unless we know who is able to vote. There should be a debate between the parties to consider how to improve the system.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the battle in— some ways, the relentless battle—between central and local government did neither party any good. He called for balanced, measured judgment and for local democracy. Unfortunately, he dug a little too deeply into his conscience and did not feel that he would be able to vote with the Opposition today. May I plead that, after hearing the debate, he might not need to dig so deeply as he had thought?
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) brought out a box of tricks which he had clearly obtained from Conservative central office. He is in danger of being known in future as the hon. Member for Pandora because even with his box he did not get it right in relation to public sector borrowing requirement problems. The blame does not lie with local authorities, which raise perhaps £10 billion a year, or even with central Government finance for local authorities, which is of the order of £32 billion a year. The real problem lies with the level of unemployment because we now spend £20 billion of virtually wasted resources buying ourselves out of unemployment.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has returned to the Chamber. He emphasised his duty to make representations on behalf of his constituents, and he certainly did that in a humorous way today. He said that he was not confident that the Minister would necessarily respond to all his representations. However, I believe that he revealed some of his real views when he paid tribute to the important work of a child abuse centre in his constituency, but was not prepared to recognise that there is a clear link between the way in which the SSA is calculated and the amount of resources available to a local authority to spend on that essential duty.
The hon. Member for Harlow also gave himself away when he criticised a community group having access to a public building at peak times. I should have thought that the whole purpose of a public building was that community groups should have access to it and, if they needed access to it at peak times, that was an appropriate use for that building.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to the authentic voice of Essex which I believe is vested in me. The Labour-controlled council of Harlow is having to grapple with the effects of inheriting a new town with its large infrastructure as well as the reasonable expectations of its residents, but that situation is not matched by appropriate funding from central Government. There is at least a moral commitment for the Government to fund that infrastructure. Is not the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) caught between a rock and a hard place? His Government are letting him down while his constituents are being failed by the same Government financially.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for raising that point. The hon. Member for Harlow did not inform the
408
electorate before the general election that there was a need to rein in public expenditure: the electorate found that out to their cost afterwards.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that he believed that the country deserved good local government, and I certainly endorse that. I was not sure about his point in respect of the redundancies in Birmingham, whether the figure for job losses is 3,000 or 1,000, but even 1,000 job losses is bad for a city such as Birmingham which has suffered some of the worst effects of the recession.
Mr. Riddick: Does the hon. Gentleman approve of the way in which Sheffield council has used poll tax payers' money to subsidise the constituency offices of five Labour Members to the tune of £55,000?
Mr. Henderson: Whatever else I thought about the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), I thought that he intervened in this place sufficiently frequently to have heard the answers to questions. Had he been in the Chamber today, he would already have heard that those facilities are made available to Members of Parliament in Sheffield.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that it was surprising that the Secretary of State did not mention job losses. My hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) identified the way in which the calculation of the SSA has been extremely damaging to their constituencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge compared the situation in Gateshead with that in Westminster, clearly demonstrating the inequities in the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central has repeatedly emphasised the way in which the system discriminates against coal areas such as Barnsley. I pay tribute to his persistence and I hope that the Minister will say more about that than his predecessors have in years gone by.
Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman associating those on his Front Bench with the idea that money should be taken away from inner London and given to the north? That would affect Camden, Islington, Hackney and Lambeth, as well as Westminster. Is that the Opposition's policy?
Mr. Henderson: I think that I am running out of time— [Laughter.] Hon. Members should wait a moment. I was about to help the Minister by explaining the work that has been done by Dr. Martyn Senior at the university of Salford in examining the criteria in respect of the standard spending assessment. The hon. Gentleman has brought me to that point a little prematurely, but I will answer his question.
At present, the criteria do not allow any significant impact for long-term unemployment, which badly damages certain and specific communities and leads to increased needs in respect of education, social services and economic development. That has nothing to do with comparisons between the north and London boroughs, but everything to do with an equitable system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn highlighted the failure of the capping system. He showed that cuts in

409
local government expenditure have a deflationary effect on our economy. He said also that, when expenditure has been buoyant, so has the private sector, because it has gained much from healthy local authorities. He pointed out contradictions in the Secretary of State's position on capping, jobs and service cuts.
There are occasions in the House when hon. Members regret something that they have said. The Secretary of State has no great reputation for regretting things that he has done, but hon. Members might wonder whether he has any regrets about what he has said about capping. If he has some regrets, he will be able to take some consolation, for his political acrobatics have no doubt impressed Treasury officials well in advance of any leap that he might want to make in future from his Kremlin at No. 2 Marsham street to the bunker at No. 11 Downing street. If he is to square what he said in his November statement about no jobs being lost with what is evidently happening in local authorities, he will need the acrobatic qualities of the gladiators we see on television on Saturday evenings.
I remind the House that the Secretary of State said that local authorities should be able to maintain the full range of services that they provide if they run them efficiently. How does he square that statement with Tory authorities' response to his announcement? How does he square it with the response of Devon, which has announced £21 million in cuts and 145 job losses? How does he square it with the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)? Cambridgeshire's SSA is down from £402 million to £380.6 million, and 330 jobs are at risk. How does he square it with Harrow, where 10 per cent. cuts in services will take place and 200 jobs will go? How does he square it with Enfield, which has emphasised that it has a £21 million gap and that up to £10.5 million could go in its education budget?
Some schools have said that they could lose up to 20 teachers. An education officer has said that it is possible that children will be taught part-time at Enfield. The head of a school tells parents that children might be on a four-day week or a four-and-a-half day week by the time the council has finished its budget. How does the Secretary of State square what he has said with the situation in Barnet, where the chief executive has said that the effect of the Government's policy is to take the arms and legs off the local authority? The chief education officer in Barnet talks about the education system being bankrupt.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should in future co-ordinate his speech rather more closely with that of his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The thrust of his hon. Friend's speech was that the system was a giant con trick designed to favour Conservative-controlled local authorities at the expense of Labour-controlled local authorities. Now we have from the hon. Gentleman a litany of woe specifically related to Conservative-controlled local authorities. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Henderson: The Secretary of State must acknowledge that the Opposition are not trying to have it both ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn emphasised the advantage that he believes that shire counties have had, but he also emphasised that the SSA system was so inequitable that not only Labour authorities
410
but many Conservative authorities were complaining. What is the Secretary of State's response to those authorities?
Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson: No, I want to make progress.
Is the Secretary of State saying that those authorities are misrepresenting the true position? Is he saying that they are inefficiently run Tory councils? What is his advice to Barnet council? Is he saying that it should make £8.5 million cuts in education to avoid capping, or is he saying that teachers should be made redundant and class sizes increased? Is he suggesting that there should be part-time education in Barnet and that support staff should be sacked? Is he recommending that there should be cuts in equipment? Is he saying that all those cuts should take place? What is the Secretary of State saying to those Tory authorities?
What is the Secretary of State saying to parents in Barnet, who, in Conservative Britain, in state schools in 1993, are now being told that under local management their schools cannot afford to buy services from the local authority such as music, sport, and other facilities? What is his advice to the Tories on Barnet council? After hearing today's debate, is he still prepared to say that his settlement is an eminently reasonable one, as he stated in his opening remarks?
Clearly, great damage has been caused to our local authority services by the Government cuts and the destruction of local democracy. There is also a sense of grievance throughout the country, which is made worse by the feeling that the calculation of the standard spending assessment is distorted and biased. If we are to have a system of local government which is considered fair and which is honoured at local level by people of all political colours, as many Conservative Members have said today, we need a major review of the SSA system. It is not good enough to say that such a review will take place internally. I believe that there should be an independent review of local government finance. That is the view of Tory and Labour local authorities, the academic world and the Audit Commission. We all look forward to the evidence from the Audit Commission in future.
Contrary to their November statement that cuts would be unnecessary, the Government are asking the House to vote for deep cuts in local authority services. Contrary to that commitment, they are asking the House to vote for thousands of job cuts in local government at a time when 3 million people are unemployed. Contrary to the Secretary of State's commitment that capping should he used only as a reserve power, they are asking the House to vote for an unprecedented regime of Soviet-style central control of local government finance which will totally destroy democracy. Contrary to their claims about subsidiarity at the time of the Maastricht summit, they are asking for the right to deny British people the right to decide their own level of local authority provision, a right which any reasonable interpretation of subsidiarity would grant them.
We believe not only that the financial regime which the Government are set to impose on the British people is flawed and incomprehensible, but that its structure shows bias in the setting of SSAs and notional budgets and in the allocation of grant. Cuts will cause severe pain to those in local communities who depend most on local authority

411
services, and job losses will have a further deflationary effect on the economy with a consequential increase in the cost of unemployment benefit. We believe that British people can be trusted at local level to decide the contribution that they make to their own services. We believe that democracy does matter nationally and locally, and we ask the House to reject the Government's proposal today.
9.38 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) certainly gave us a more powerful rant than the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but his speech was equally wide of the mark. The charge of the Labour party that the grant system is biased and rigged is simply wrong. It is a disgraceful charge to make, and I intend to disprove it.
We have had a good debate, and I would like to add my praise to all those councillors and people who work in local government who were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and several other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Local government does extremely important work. We are often well served by our local councillors, and I add my tribute to them.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce rose—
Mr. Redwood: No, I must press on, because I wish to answer many points from the debate.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) dared to attack the idea that the single person should get a discount from the council tax. This is of great importance to 6 million people and it amazes me that the Labour party wants to take that discount from all those single people. I hope that my hon. Friends will be telling their constituents just what the Labour party wants to do in this respect.
The hon. Gentleman complained that the SSAs needed changing and that they were not stable enough. To add even more extraordinary remarks to his speech, he went on to say that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys had identified that there were people missing from its census, but did not seem to realise that it had adjusted the census and added them back in so that the SSAs would reflect the actual number of people. There are good statistical methods for correcting these things and the work has been done by independent statisticians.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said that the Liberal party wished to take off all the caps and he did not mind the tax consequences. He told us that he had had no letters from people wishing to keep taxes low and that this did not really matter; we should allow local government in Cheltenham and elsewhere to spend anything it liked. If that were the policy that Parliament had approved, the hon. Gentleman would soon be getting plenty of letters from those living under Liberal councils throughout the country, because they are indeed spendthrift, just like the Labour councils, which spend more and provide less service for the money they are getting. He made no mention of the fact that Cheltenham is getting a 10.9 per cent. increase in its SSA this year—one of the biggest increases in the country.
412
I should like to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) for his excellent speech on the position of local government next year, drawing on his very wide experience of local government. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the internal management working party will look at the role of the officer and of the member in local government. I have much sympathy for his remarks that for good local government there needs to be a clear distinction between those roles; the councillors should be interested in policy and monitoring and should leave officials to get on with the job of executing and running the policies that they have agreed.
To the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) I can give the assurance that next year, when we review the SSAs, we will look not only at the data that are becoming available, which will be updated and changed, but also at the method. I take his remarks and those of other speakers in the debate as early representations of what they would like to see in those amendments to method. As the House will have heard during the debate today, there are many different views of how they should be changed, and of course different parts of the country want them to be changed in entirely different directions.
I enjoyed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). His was both an amusing and a hard-hitting speech. I also enjoyed the pantomime double act with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who played the straight man, or the other end of the pantomime horse, with great aplomb.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury attacked the debt mountain of certain local authorities. I echo his remarks that those local authorities that can get themselves out of debt naturally get more financial freedom. They show that they can manage their affairs extremely well and they are not then spending their money on interest charges; they are spending it on real services for their people.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) attacked the whole idea of the area cost adjustment. He seemed unable to grasp the point that, despite the area cost adjustment, because there are many other factors in the formula that help his part of the country at the expense of places like the home counties and London, his part of the country really does quite well. Lancashire's SSA per head is £615, while, of the counties that he eyed enviously, Hampshire has £568 and Oxfordshire £541. I do not think that his council or constituents would like it if we swapped the one for the other. It shows that the points that he made about Lancashire's needs are clearly picked up in the formula for the SSA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) was rightly disappointed that members of the Liberal party were not present to hear his contribution. It is strange, as the Liberals have always claimed an interest in the Isle of Wight, but now that it is safely under the control and in the good hands of my hon. Friend perhaps the Liberals have learnt that it is not worth discussing the Isle of Wight any more.
Mr. Nigel Jones: I apologise to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for missing his speech. I had an engagement with the BBC at the time.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows where his friends are and where his friends are not.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) was desperate to get to the BBC before I did.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will have made better use of the invitation than did the hon. Member for Cheltenham.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is pleased that the Isle of Wight has, at 6.1 per cent., the biggest increase in standard spending assessment per head of any of the counties next year, and that it makes budgeting easier. It has picked up some of the points that he mentioned. I give him the assurance that we will look at the issue of the fire services SSA distribution in the working party and in the discussions ahead of next year's settlement. If he or any other hon. Member wishes to make representations on that, we will be happy to receive their letters.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) made no reference to the Newark and Sherwood councils which have increased their budgets by almost 50 per cent., comparing the current year with 1990–91. Despite their having gone up 50 per cent. against inflation of 12 per cent., we were treated to the usual speech about deadly cuts and savage impositions by the Conservative Government. What price, then, the freedom of local government when a council in his own area can increase its budget by almost 50 per cent. if it wishes? It seems to me to show considerable local freedom and autonomy, together with the ability to put the interests of those providing the council services ahead of those of the chargepayer. The SSA is primarily a mechanism to distribute grant—the hon. Member for Sherwood seemed keen that I should say that—but, as he knows, it serves other purposes as well.
The hon. Gentleman also attacked the idea of the area cost adjustment. He seemed unaware that Nottinghamshire and an SSA of £603 per head while Surrey, deep in the area that he covets, has an SSA per head of £513. I hope that he will find that the £90 extra is not only useful but reflects the way in which needs differ between Nottinghamshire and Surrey and are picked up by the formula.
I was delighted to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will give the Government his wholehearted support on this issue. I hear that there have been one or two disagreements recently between him and the Government, but 1 am delighted that he sees fit to support us on this occasion. We will look carefully at the points that he made on sparsity and area cost, but he may like to know that already his council is the second biggest beneficiary from the sparsity factor. That, among other things, will be reviewed. We will also review the weightings, although it would mean putting another fraction into the grant formula, and my hon. Friend, in his amusing speech, was a little critical of the fractions in some of the grant formulae.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should attempt to make all that we do intelligible and easy to understand. Some of the documents are, by their nature, complicated because they attempt to provide accurate assessments around the country and they form the base for the computer programming and the detailed work of local authorities. There are more accessible ways of learning
414
about the system. My Department has sent out leaflets in plain English on, for example, the council tax, so that people can find out how the system is built up without all the complex detail needed to run the computers aria define the SSAs precisely.
Mr. Straw: The Minister will recall that when he was asked on the BBC at lunchtime about whether jobs would be cut, comparing next year with this, he dodged the question. Will he tell the House categorically whether he believes that this time next year there will be fewer, the same or more jobs in local government than there are today?
Mr. Redwood: I will not forecast the number of jobs in local government, because, for example, there may be a good many grant-maintained schools. I do not know how many will decide to become grant-maintained. If that happens, the same number of people will still be employed but they will be employed by the schools, thus reducing the number employed by the local authorities. If a large number of local authorities do more competitive tendering, there could be a transfer of jobs from local authorities to the private sector.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should let me answer and then he may have another cockshy if he wishes to. He may be disappointed that he is not getting anywhere on this point. One cannot forecast that sort of thing.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the settlement means that there is no need for compulsory redundancies in any well run authority, given the increases in grant and permitted spending which we are offering. There may be one or two badly run Labour authorities which have budgeted badly, overspent and got into terrible difficulties in the past. Those authorities may have to take awful steps. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said that the fault lay with Labour Members, not Conservative Members, for the way in which such authorities are run.
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State said that there will be no compulsory redundancies. In fact, in his letter to me dated 17 December he said that there would be no need for any job cuts. The question that I put to the Minister again, which is different, is: taking account of any transfers to the grant-maintained sector and privatised commercial undertakings, can he say that this time next year the overall level of jobs in local government will be the same as or lower than this year?
Mr. Redwood: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that there will be no need for job losses. I refer the hon. Member for Blackburn to the survey in the Municipal Journal, which interviewed the personnel chiefs of all local authorities. Of the local authorities surveyed, 22 per cent. will be making extra jobs in key areas, especially in care in the community; only 10 per cent. are thinking of any job reduction and 68 per cent. are not thinking of making changes. That is one estimate; it is not my estimate. As I told the hon. Member for Blackburn, I will not estimate the number of jobs that there will be in local government in the next 12 to 15 months. Personnel chiefs suggest that more councils will increase staff numbers in key areas rather than make reductions.

415
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow gave the House a riveting account of what can happen in a Labour-controlled council which deliberately overspends. When such councils overspend, not simply by the odd million pounds but by many millions of pounds which they do not have, they must get the money back from the taxpayers.
Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that Wandsworth council announced this week, as it prepared its budget, that it has overspent by £6 million? How does he compare Wandsworth in those circumstances?
Mr. Redwood: Wandsworth council is well known for its good financial management and low taxation. I do not expect to see Wandsworth as a potential applicant for capping, whereas I fear that one or two Labour-run councils may have to be so.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, the result of council overspending and bad management is damage to taxpayers and services and the sacking of employees. it is a disgrace that local authorities should be so badly run that councils get to the point of damaging taxpayers and services and sacking employees when the overall settlement is perfectly reasonable.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) contrasted Westminster and Gateshead as an example of alleged political bias. That is one of the kernels of the debate. The matter was first taken up by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The issue is whether there is any bias in the system. Let us examine the facts. On the standard spending assessment—it is right to examine the amount of spending and the grant based on it which councils are given for each individual in a local authority—the councils which do well under the current formula are Lambeth, at £1,241 a head, Hackney, at £1,410 a head, and Tower Hamlets, at £1,435 a head.
I can see a bit of political bias in that, but I fear that the criticism will come from Conservative Members, not from Labour Members. When I compare those figures with the shire areas, I see Surrey at £513 plus £80 or £90 for each district and West Sussex at £551 plus £80 or £90 for a typical district. Those figures are under half the level that large Labour and Liberal authorities in inner London receive.
Let us consider the specific argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn, who said that we had singled out the Labour shires for bad treatment. The eight Labour shires have an average SSA per head of £594, and the average for all shires is £585, so they had £10 per head more than the average.
Consider the averages by types of authority. In the shire areas, where there are more Conservatives, taking county and district together, it is £674 per head. In the metropolitan areas, where there are more Labour councils, it is £814. In London—with the considerable weight given to inner London where many Labour councils are—it is £1,055 per head. So I completely reject the idea that there is any political rigging whatsoever. The hon. Member for Blackburn does not want to intervene now because he knows that that is right. He knows that the formula gives more money to Labour-controlled areas.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Minister; he should not make an invitation like that. He failed to deal with the fact
416
that the increase for Labour shire counties, at 2.2 per cent., is well below the increase in SSAs for Conservative shire counties, at 3.7 per cent. The difference in the increases shows the bias of the Conservative Government.
Mr. Redwood: They were getting more before and they will be getting more next year. Their increase is smaller because their populations have been falling, or have not been increasing as much as those in Conservative areas.
In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Blackburn made a wimp of a speech; a stumble of a speech; a speech that died of intellectual rigor mortis long before he got to the end. I began to wonder whether he was understudying the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, because he certainly lost his hon. Friends and most of mine in his strange arguments about public expenditure. I began to wonder whether he had come to the wrong debate.
The hon. Gentleman went on to make claims about the state of local government based on a survey that had just been conducted—a survey that he thought was independent and rigorous. I see this statement on the inside of that survey:
?The client for the independent budget monitoring project is the Labour party.?
What an independent survey. Labour organised the questions, paid for the results and decided whether to publish them. There is open government in practice.! The Opposition are obviously trying to warm up their ideas.
When we look at the first survey resulting from that expensive piece of consultancy, we find not so much a survey but more a loosely linked group of 80 casual press cuttings. Any press cutting with bad news attached is included and any cutting with good news attached is scrupulously avoided and kept out.
It is like the Opposition's policy on local government: give prominence to the announcement that Birmingham will cut 3,000 jobs and let people believe that they will be sacked and that there will be compulsory redundancies; let the families of all those people squirm; let those employees go home at night worrying whether they will have a job in the morning; and then play it down when they are told a few days later that there will be only 1,000 job losses at maximum, and that no one will be sacked or made redundant. As one of my hon. Friends said, who knows how many job losses they will be predicting in a week or two? I hope that it will be none.
Let us consider what happened in Avon. I had to go on the radio and explain why I thought that there would be 4,000 job losses. I said that I did not think that there should or would be. The ?Today? programme of the BBC was not interested in the story that followed, when Avon climbed down and said it was not 4,000, 2,000 or 1,000 job losses, but that 170 posts might disappear. I hope that it will be none.
Dr. Berry: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Redwood: No, I shall not give way.
I know that for some local authorities next year will not be easy—
Dr. Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to give inaccurate information to the House and refuse to give way when he is challenged?
Madam Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own comments and statements.
Mr. Redwood: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman wanted to stop my peroration. He does not like what I am saying.
Dr. Berry rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Redwood: This is a fair settlement, a good settlement, and I commend it to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 251.

Division No. 140]

[10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Couchman, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cran, James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Amess, David

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Ancram, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arbuthnot, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Day, Stephen

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Ashby, David

Devlin, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Dickens, Geoffrey

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baldry, Tony

Dover, Den

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Duncan, Alan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bates, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Batiste, Spencer

Durant, Sir Anthony

Beggs, Roy

Dykes, Hugh

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Elletson, Harold

Beresford, Sir Paul

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Booth, Hartley

Evennett, David

Boswell, Tim

Faber, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, Andrew

Fishburn, Dudley

Bowis, John

Forman, Nigel

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brandreth, Gyles

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bright, Graham

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Freeman, Roger

Browning, Mrs. Angela

French, Douglas

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gale, Roger

Burns, Simon

Gallie, Phil

Burt, Alistair

Gardiner, Sir George

Butcher, John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Butler, Peter

Garnier, Edward

Butterfill, John

Gill, Christopher

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gillan, Cheryl

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carrington, Matthew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Cash, William

Gorst, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clappison, James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hague, William

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Coe, Sebastian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Colvin, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Congdon, David

Hannam, Sir John

Conway, Derek

Hargreaves, Andrew

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Harris, David

418

Haselhurst, Alan

Needham, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Nelson, Anthony

Hawksley, Warren

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Heald, Oliver

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hendry, Charles

Norris, Steve

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hicks, Robert

Oppenheim, Phillip

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Ottaway, Richard

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Page, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Paice, James

Horam, John

Patnick, Irvine

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jack, Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jenkin, Bernard

Redwood, John

Jessel, Toby

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Key, Robert

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knapman, Roger

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knox, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lidington, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Madel, David

Stephen, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stern, Michael

Major, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan

Malone, Gerald

Streeter, Gary

Mans, Keith

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Sweeney, Walter

Marlow, Tony

Sykes, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thomason, Roy

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Milligan, Stephen

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mills, Iain

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Moate, Sir Roger

Tracey, Richard

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

419

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wilkinson, John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Waterson, Nigel

Wolfson, Mark

Watts, John

Wood, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Mr. Andrew McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 422), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other motions relating to local government finance, pursuant to Order [29 January].
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 5) (House of Commons Paper No. 423), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. Howard.]
Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 424), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. Howard.]
Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) (Amendment) Report (England) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 443), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved. —[Mr. Howard.]

Prisons (Contracting Out)
10.15 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) (No. 2) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.
The order extends the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to allow the management of existing prisons to be contracted out to a private operator. The Criminal Justice Bill as originally drafted provided for the contracting out of only new remand prisons but in February 1991 during its passage through the House the Government accepted an amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) which allowed the powers to be extended by powers made by statutory instrument.
In July last year, the House approved an order which extended contracting out to new prisons generally. As a result, and following a successful competitive tendering exercise, the new prison at Blackenhurst is due to open in the spring under the management of UK Detention Services Ltd. Blakenhurst will hold both sentenced and remand prisoners.
Like Wolds, the first contracted-out prison, Blakenhurst will provide a regime incorporating not only the many good practices of the best of existing prison service establishments, but some valuable new ideas. The performance of the prisons will be closely and continually monitored to ensure compliance with the high standards that we have set out in the agreement with the contractor.
In debating the contracting out of prisons such as Wolds and Blakenhurst to private contractors, we should look at the positive programme that we have put in place by setting out specifications that are in line with the Woolf report on prisons. For example, Blakenhurst will provide a positive programme. Prisoners will be locked in their cells only at normal sleeping times or for specific security needs, and that will usually result in prisoners spending 15 hours per day out of their cells.
A mixture of education provision of at least six hours a week will aim to prepare prisoners for the realities of release and will build into the prison day a constructive and rehabilitative regime. Visiting facilities for prisoners' families will be open in the evening to suit the convenience of the visitor and there will be daily visits for unconvicted prisoners. Basic hygiene provision for prisoners will be good, providing daily showers and changes of socks and underpants, as specified in the contract. [Interruption.]
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is so much noise going on below the Gangway, Madam Speaker, that I cannot hear the Minister. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady makes a good point. The House is very noisy immediately after a Division. I should be most grateful if hon. Members would settle down so that we might hear the Secretary of State.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway are firmly against the introduction of private management to prisons, but none of them has the slightest interest in listening to what would actually occur and has occurred in Blakenhurst, where a private regime has been introduced. I have been describing the extremely enlightened regimes— [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should remain silent, at least until we have heard the Secretary of State.
Mr. Bob Cryer: We are being provoked.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am being provoked.
Mr. Clarke: I was describing the extremely enlightened regime that is being provided at Blakenhurst prison. One of the features of the contracts that we have placed so far—apart from specifications relating to the value for money that the taxpayer expects—is our detailed specification for the enlightened regime towards which the Woolf report pointed the way. For example, sex offender therapy treatment will be provided in this positive programme. The whole programme is very much in line not only with the Woolf report, but with suggestions made in a report on prison regimes published only last week by the chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, entitled ?Doing Time, Using Time?.
The order completes the extension of a section of the Criminal Justice Act to allow existing prisons to be managed by private operators. That will enable us to encourage the spread of similar improvements in prison management and regimes, and to make further progress in the way in which prisoners are looked after.
I am presenting the order now because we are currently carrying out a market testing exercise on Her Majesty?s prison Manchester, usually described as Strangeways. We need to pass the order now, because we need to be in a position to enter into a contract should a private operator succeed in winning it. Some half-dozen private-sector companies and an in-house team from the prison service are now working on their bids in competition.
By introducing the order today, I am in no way pre-empting the outcome of the tender evaluation process. I am keeping in touch with it, but we have not begun to evaluate the rival bids from the private bidders and the prison service. It is a case of being prepared for this, and for future market-testing and contracting-out exercises in existing prisons, which we would not be allowed to do without the authority of the House.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What consultation has there been with the Strangeways prison officers, and what has been the outcome?
Mr. Clarke: There has been a good deal of discussion throughout. I am delighted to say that the prison officers, along with the Prison Officers Association, are cooperating actively with management in putting together a bid, and are trying to demonstrate how they can best match up to the demanding specification. Consultations are proceeding now, in line with the TUPE application, with which I shall deal in due course.
Manchester is one of our oldest and largest local prisons. At the time of the disturbances in April 1990, it held 1,647 prisoners, including unconvicted prisoners on remand and those awaiting sentence as well as prisoners serving their sentences. That included prisoners in the highest security category, category A. The House will recall that, as a result of the 1990 riot, the larger part of the prison was left in a condition that required major refurbishment, amounting almost to rebuilding.
It was against that background of rebuilding that we decided to take the opportunity of market-testing
424
Manchester before it was fully reopened. We had two main reasons, both of which I consider fairly obvious. First, as a result of being emptied and refurbished, Manchester was virtually a new prison, holding a substantially smaller number of prisoners—currently about 500. The move followed logically from our policy of seeking private-sector tenders for the operation of new prisons. That policy was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on the Blakenhurst order. Secondly, it seemed an excellent way of moving to a further stage in our market-testing programme.
That next stage is very significant, and I hope that Opposition Members welcome it as much as I do. We are seeking in-house bids as well as private-sector bids, and considering the two in competition with each other. Although Manchester prison is not fully operational, the prison service already has a nucleus of staff there, well placed to develop an in-house bid.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On market testing, is it true the Home Office has run into difficulties over a European directive, causing it to have to alter proposed contracts so as not adversely to affect the contracts of employment of people already in Government service?
Mr. Clarke: I was going to deal with that point, and referred to it briefly in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I shall cover the problems arising from the directive and the TUPE regulations based on it. However, I should like first to describe the basis on which we are proceeding at Manchester.
As I said, it is technically an existing prison, although most of it is waiting to be reopened after refurbishment. It is also the first time that we have gone to market testing where there has been a prison service bid being tested alongside private sector contractors. When it reopens, Manchester prison will offer a substantially improved environment for prisoners and staff. Bidding for it will provide the prison service with an ideal opportunity to consider how to implement innovative ideas which will allow it to compete effectively with the private sector.
The tendering exercise for Manchester is taking place at a key time for the prison service. In April, the service will become an executive agency under the leadership of Derek Lewis, whom I appointed recently. He has a wide commercial background in the private sector. I announced earlier this week that his remit as head of the prison service will include responsibility for taking forward Government policy on the involvement of the private sector in managing prisons. I want to see the service take full advantage of the opportunities which competition will provide and to see it reap the benefits which are already becoming apparent as a result of our contracting-out programme at Wolds and Blakenhurst and in the market testing of Manchester.
Agency status for the prison service, market testing and competition all have the same objective. The sole objective is to raise standards and secure better value for money throughout the prison system. I want a system that is a mixed economy, including prisons managed by private operators in addition to those under direct management. To achieve those improvements we need the right balance and mix between public and private sector management of individual prisons within the prison service. I have asked

425
Derek Lewis to provide advice to me later this year on the extent, form and time scale for increasing private sector involvement by later this year.
In the meantime, in about April, and again following our policy on new prisons, we shall invite private operators to bid for the management of the new prison at Doncaster. It is the last of the 21 new prisons constructed as part of our most recent prison building programme completed at a total cost of £1,200 million. It is a local prison, with some 720 places and scheduled to open in the early part of 1994. The House will recall that we committed ourselves in the autumn statement to begin work within the next three years on the first two new prisons in a prison building programme that will follow.
In addition to handling the Doncaster project, the agency will identify further existing establishments for market testing or for contracting out. I have twice been asked about the problem that has arisen during the contracting-out process of existing establishments, including Manchester, which is the subject of TUPE. I am sorry to use the acronym. The TUPE regulations should be given their full name—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. They are the means by which the European Community acquired rights directive is translated into domestic law. The regulations protect the employment contracts and collective agreements of staff when an undertaking is transferred from one organisation to another.
I think that it is fair to say that, when the EC directive and the TUPE regulations were drawn up, the draftsmen did not have in mind the type of transfer of work from the public to the private sector, which has been one of the achievements of successive Conservative Governments and which we remain committed to continue. The result has been considerable discussion across Whitehall., and outside, about TUPE's effect on a number of contracting-out and market testing exercises, including ours at Manchester. Indeed, when we issued the invitations to tender for Manchester in October last year, our understanding based on our then legal advice was that TUPE would not apply. Shortly before Christmas, we took further legal advice. It is not wholly unusual for legal advice to differ on different occasions.
On the basis of the latest advice, it became apparent that TUPE could apply to Manchester. In any event, to resolve doubt, we have decided that we shall apply the provisions of the regulations, so that the successful tenderer will take over protected employment contracts and collective agreements. We are now carrying out consultations, as that is also a requirement of the regulations. That has resulted in a slight delay to the Manchester tendering exercise while we consider the implications. I hope that we will be able to set a new date for the return of tenders very soon. We have already begun the consultations with the trade unions, and we are providing the further information necessary to allow the bidders to take into account the application of TUPE.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is that a final requirement or simply a contingency requirement? Did not the permanent secretary tell the unions that tendering was taking place on that basis and that there is still legal consideration within the Government as to whether the directive will apply to Government Departments?
Mr. Clarke: For the time being in the prison service, we propose to consider the application of the regulations case by case. With regard to Manchester, we have decided to apply and to follow the regulations. That is the process that we have now embarked upon, and that is why we have extended the date for bids and have issued the further information. As part of that, we are consulting the trade unions as required by the regulations.
I should make it clear that I do not see the application of TUPE to Manchester prison as a barrier to private sector involvement. There are arguably benefits from taking over existing staff as well as difficulties. However, I believe that it is perfectly feasible for new ideas and approaches to be grafted on to the existing expertise and skills, of which there is certainly already a good supply in the prison service.
We are well on the way towards that significant level of private-sector involvement in the prison sector that I want to see. Private-sector involvement is one way forward to a better service for prisoners and the taxpayer. The benefits of bringing private sector management into the prison service alongside the existing public sector prison service are considerable. Competition in striving to achieve the kind of standards that the Government now stipulate based on the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim and others will lead to people finding different ways to speed up the process of raising standards.
It is very important that we have a basis upon which to make a comparison between one approach to managing the regime and another. The background is that I believe that the existing prison service in some places already does a good job often against the odds. Most of the members of the prison service I meet are dedicated officers who joined the service for the right reasons and are struggling to provide fair and humane care in difficult surroundings.
Mrs. Tessa Jowell: Will the Home Secretary describe the ways in which he sees the contracted-out prisons improving the quality of medical services available to prisoners, and particularly of psychiatric provision—which, given the number of people in our prisons who are suffering from mental illness, is of pressing importance?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that there is considerable scope for improving the quality of the medical service throughout the prison service—in both the public sector and private sector prisons. I am very glad to say that I find myself working with the chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, with whom I have worked in the past. He now heads a team advising me on how to develop the prison medical service further.
I have already given fresh directions on the employment of NHS-trained nurses in the service. We need to improve facilities and the problem of those who require psychiatric care in prisons has always been, and remains, serious. However, we are making progress. The system is far from perfect, but the transfer of people from prison to mental hospital when they really need psychiatric care and are not suitably housed inside a prison is better than it was.
However, that is an area where I am anxious to see progress and I would like private sector prisons and operators to contract for their medical care from outside. That is one way of introducing a variety of approaches to the system so that we can raise the medical regimes inside prisons up to the standards that we would like to see. I have always believed that, in every way, the prison medical

427
service should be brought closer to the national health service and more in line with mainstream medical provision. Again, the involvement of people such as Sir Donald Acheson will be very helpful to us in moving in that direction.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am very interested in my right hon. and learned Friend's point. Is he aware of the evidence to Select Committees over the years, in particular the Health Select Committee and its predecessor the Social Services Select Committee? an inquiry into the prison medical service found that rather too many people who had originally been patients in psychiatric hospitals and had been put into the community had ended up in prison because the hospital service would not take them back again.
Mr. Clarke: I agree that that is a difficulty, but I am not going to be taken outside my subject, except that that point is relevant, obviously, to the standards that we specify in the contracts that we put out, but there are countless such difficulties. I recall the debates on care in the community and the need to develop proper facilities for those who are no longer treated in mental hospitals. Certainly, in the past people have gone to prison who should not have been there and should have been in hospital. I recall national health service hospitals that had a policy that they would not take people who had been involved with the criminal justice system, so it became very difficult to find a place for them in NHS hospitals.
It is my genuine belief, as I have said before to my hon. Friend, that the situation is improving, but I am no more complacent than he is about the present state of affairs. We need improvements in the prison service and in the national health service, and we are working upon that.
I have described one of the many ways not only in which the prison service is improving but in which, I believe, can speed up the process and use matters such as market testing, contracting out, and the involvement of new management skills from the private sector in order to speed up the process of improvement. It fits, certainly, with the concept of public service. What the Government mean by public service is the provision of facilities that are giving ever better service to the public, who are the consumers of what we are providing. In the past, some have thought that the notion of public service means that everybody who works for it is on the public payrol. That is the wrong way to approach the matter.
Harnessing new ideas, considering different ways of working, allowing in some welcome fresh air seem to be long overdue, particularly in the prison service. The move to agency status, with greater freedom to manage the prison service, along with the extension of private sector involvement should allow us to develop a better prison system and one of which we as a country can be proud. The order will help to achieve that aim, and I therefore commend it to the House.
10.36 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: This is a short debate, but it is important. There is no doubt at all that many features of our present prison system are a disgrace—inhumane, unjust and deeply destructive of any realistic possibility of rehabilitation for offenders. Overcrowding is a continuing
428
and serious problem. The psychiatric treatment of prisoners has been referred to by hon. Members. There are problems of persistent and widespread drug abuse. Report after report from Judge Tumim expresses concern at prison conditions, most recently in respect of Longlartin and Spring Hill. He said:
?The existing living accommodation is some of the worst we have ever seen.?
Last year alone, there were 41 suicides in prison institutions. The issue, therefore, is not whether the prison system should be changed—it should be changed, and changed drastically—but whether change is best achieved by reforming the prison service or by privatising it, by building a better public service, as Opposition Members say, or turning it over to private sector companies for profit, as is the Government?s case.
Mr. Rupert Allason: To be fair, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Judge Tumim also congratulated the prison service on the dramatic improvements that have taken place at Brixton? Indeed, he has said that Longlartin has improved over the past 12 months as well.
Mr. Blair: Judge Tumim has described improvements. Indeed, he paid special tribute to the staff and the role that they have played in bringing about those improvements, but as the hon. Gentleman will accept, there is a very long way to go.
Faced with those critical issues within the prison service, privatisation is not just a diversion from the agenda of prison reform; it is fundamentally flawed in principle and is now being pursued for reasons which have nothing to do with efficiency or prison reform but are simply an obsession with the idea of privatisation itself. Nothing could illustrate that more clearly than the story in The Guardian today. The Home Secretary will deny it if it is wrong, so let us see whether he does. It says that the new contractors for Strangeways in Manchester have already been asked to prepare to load extra costs on to the contract should the prison be filled beyond capacity.
We are debating whether the prison service should be in the public or the private sector when the critical question of overcrowding lies unattended. The Minister says, "Big deal" and it is indeed a big deal—it is the very problem that the Woolf report says we should be acting upon. If the Minister cared about the prison system he would concentrate on it.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman invited me to deny it, and I firmly deny the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. In the bad old days, Manchester's maximum capacity was 1,800 inmates. If the Opposition had their way and we carried on running it in the old way, no doubt all the old disadvantages would continue. The present capacity that we are aiming for is much lower, but we have to anticipate that from time to time it might go above its maximum capacity, as other prisons do, and we have to make contingency arrangements within the contract to deal with that—but its maximum occupancy will never return to the old overcrowded conditions.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the prison population is falling and we are opening new prisons. I do not anticipate overcrowding in the near future.
Mr. Blair: That is somewhat less than convincing when we read the contract being considered for Strangeways. It has a heading, "Overcrowding", and asks the contractor to provide details of additional costs which may be incurred

429
if overcrowding occurs. The energy, time and man hours of civil servants should be used to attempt to get rid of overcrowding instead of concentrating on privatisation.
No doubt there will be more expense, energy and confusion if difficulties arise out of the transfer of undertakings regulations. Opposition Member see nothing wrong, and indeed a lot right, with the employees' terms and conditions of employment being properly protected if they are transferred.
If substantial parts of the prison service are sold off or contracted out, the multiplicity of contracts with different contractors will make the uniform improvements which lie at the heart of Woolf all the more difficult to achieve.
The urgency of those improvements could not be set out more clearly than in the Woolf report, which calls for better work, education and treatment programmes, enhanced roles for prison officers, a national system of accredited standards, a specific obligation against overcrowding—the very overcrowding now being contemplated for Strangeways—a public commitment from Ministers to improve sanitation facilities, and better prospects for prisoners in relation to prison visits. That is surely the agenda for reform, and at the heart of it lies the recognition that the new and higher standards being demanded for the prison service can be achieved only by a Government commitment to achieve them. They cannot arise through market forces, market testing or private sector initiatives—they have to be imposed by Government.
The Home Secretary lists the benefits of the prison regime at the Wolds and Blakenhurst. He says that prisoners at the Wolds are out of their cells 15 hours a day and have full access to legal assistance, and that at Blakenhurst there are educational assessments with a minimum education entitlement and better medical care. Of course hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome those improvements, but they are not the outcome of privatisation. That is the sham at the heart of it. They are the outcome of the Government specifying the regime at the prison. It has nothing to do with the private sector or the public sector and everything to do with the Government being prepared to implement the very specifications that we have been asking for the whole prison service.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's ideology is blinding him to the best means of achieving the Woolf reforms, on which we are both agreed. We set out the Woolf prospectus of the specifications and for the first time we have placed the contract with the undertaking which commits itself to deliver Woolf. At Manchester, the prison service management and the Prison Officers Association are describing how they would meet that specification. Whoever wins it will be bound by contract to deliver it. If we had not had this means of proceeding, it would have taken years to move the old public sector system anywhere near the Woolf reforms to which he and I aspire.
Mr. Blair: With all due respect, what completely blows that argument apart is that in some of the new public sector prisons there are the same specifications; it is nothing to do with the fact that it has been privatized—it is to do with the fact that, for once, the Minister has implemented the Woolf recommendations. The question that any sensible person will ask is surely this: if it is right
430
and possible to impose these higher standards on the private sector, why are the same standards not imposed throughout the public sector? If these are the right things to do in relation to Wolds and Blakenhurst, why is it not right to do them throughout the entire system? Why can we not have 15 hours a day out of cells at Frankland, or minimum education standards at Wormwood Scrubs?
If those are the things that the Minister wants to do, why not put the energy and resources of Government into doing them, rather than wasting time with privatisation? In the end, the only possible argument that he can have is that there is a great cost benefit in this, but that, of course, has been somewhat dampened by the TUPE undertakings regulations.
The costs of the Wolds in its first year, so far as there are any comparable figures, are almost identical for public sector prisons. Therefore, what any sensible person must ask is: why waste the Government's time, energy and resources on going down the route of privatisation rather than ensuring that the Woolf report is properly implemented? Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads an article published in The Independent the other day he will see that many of those in the prison system are saying that because of the threat of privatisation they are having to postpone the reform agenda that they want to carry out in order to deal with the problems of contracting out and privatisation.
Then again, with public sector prisons hon. Members do not ask parliamentary questions and get the answer back that the information cannot be given because it is a matter of commercial confidence. It is a scandal that, when hon. Members put down questions asking, for example, how many full-time custody officers are employed at these privatised prisons, we cannot get a proper response. This precisely encapsulates the conflict between privatisation and the public interest.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As my hon. Friend will know, I have taken the trouble to go and look at the privatised system in America and elsewhere, and I came to a very simple conclusion, to which I ask the Home Secretary to respond. What advantage is there in a private person making a profit from a public incarceration? When we incarcerate somebody, we are trying to reform that person. Why should a private individual make a profit out of that? What can he offer that the state cannot?
Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Hon. Members say that they are not making a profit out of it, but of course they are—it is the very thing that they are there for; that is what they do as companies. Of course there are areas of national life where private profit is not suitable. That is what the Conservative party cannot understand. They believe that if something is not run for private profit it is not run properly—that private profit and the public interest are one and the same thing; but they are not.
We say that this is a pointless exercise, because the specifications which are good in respect of privatised prisons or contracted-out management could be applied in the prison service generally. We also say that it is fundamentally wrong in principle that persons sentenced by the state to imprisonment should be deprived of their liberty and kept under lock and key by those who are not accountable solely to the state. Those employed by

431
security firms are primarily or solely accountable not to the state but to their shareholders. For the benefit of hon. Gentlemen, I will read a quotation:
"I do not think that there is a case, and I do not believe that the House would accept a case, for auctioning or privatising the prisons or handing over the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than Government servants.—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1303.]
Those were the words not of an Opposition Member but of the present Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary. Nothing has changed, except that the grip of dogma is rather stronger now than it was then.
Of course the Government may say that they retain the right to enforce the prison contract, but I say that it is a travesty to suppose that the remote possibility of an action for breach of contract by the Home Secretary is in any way a substitute for the character of a proper public service where the only duty is owed to that service. Private companies may well supply services to the state system, but to allow a private security company, whose main motivation must be commercial, the coercive powers of detention, punishment, physical restraint and influence on decisions about parole—powers of a real and harsh nature —is wrong in principle and should not be countenanced by the House.
I do not pretend that one or two private prisons or contracted-out managements will destroy the prison system, although I do not believe that they will do it any good. But if, as the right hon. Gentleman wants and as he indicated today, large parts of our prisons and prison service become privatised, run by private companies for profit, it will be not just a profound error of principle but a massive and tragic waste of an opportunity to get on with the real agenda—the reform of an antiquated and outdated prison system from which this country desperately wishes to escape.
10.51 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I wish to intervene only very briefly, but I claim to do so because in 1986 I visited some private sector prisons in the United States of America and, as a result of that visit, a Home Affairs Committee report recommended that we should consider the consequences of private sector involvement in our prison system.
I have heard the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) repeatedly use the term "privatisation". He is fundamentally wrong. We are not discussing privatisation. We are not discussing the sale of prisons and prison department estates. We are talking about market testing and the use of the private sector in accountable management contracts, which is an entirely different concept. We are discussing the possibility of the Home Office remaining firmly in control of what happens in an institution but delegating the service to a private contractor which remains accountable to the Home Office for how it manages the institution.
I believe that the order extends the concept of management contracting—
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Sir John Wheeler: No, I shall proceed, if I may, to complete my brief speech.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman may have no current interest to declare, but I have just had a look at the Register of Members' Interests and I notice that he is registered as independent chairman of the board of the National Inspectorate of Security Guard, Patrol and Transport Services from 1982. If there is an interest—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well the procedure for declaring an interest.
Sir John Wheeler: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I had any interest to declare, I should declare it. I have no interest to declare other than my interest in the use of taxpayers' money to benefit the taxpayers' interests, which is quite different from what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is suggesting.
Central to the Government's objectives is the market testing concept which they have successfully introduced into local government; they are now properly extending the principle into central Government. I can see no reason why an accountable contract should not lead to a better standard of service for the public interest, with better conditions for prison inmates and an improvement in the quality of training and facilities. I also believe that it is essential to allow people who work in the prison system the variety of other experiences.
Such ideas are commonplace in the United States. One of the great benefits of them has been that those who work in the prison service are able to find employment which enables them to achieve greater satisfaction than being tied to the bureaucratic restrictions of the state sector. Many of the objectives which those of us believe are essential to the improvement of the prison system can be found in the challenge of the market-testing process. For that reason, I especially welcome the order.
I am glad to learn that prison management in England and Wales, as well as the Prison Officers Association, wish to take part in the process. That in itself is an achievement.
As to the experiment at the Wolds prison, the hon. Member for Sedgefield suggested that there was less accountability. I believe that the reverse is true. Bureaucratic accountability is difficult to test, whereas market-testing contracts are open to challenge. Those institutions which are subject to management contracts welcome the press and media as well as hon. Members who wish to see the achievements.
The all-party penal affairs group and any hon. Member who wishes to participate may visit Wolds prison to see what is going on and judge whether it is being successfully managed. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about widening the scope not for privatisation but for market testing and accountable management contracts.
10.57 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: Repeated references have been made to Strangeways prison, which is sited in my constituency of Manchester, Central. Strangeways prison gained notoriety in 1990 when a riot broke out on 1 April. The riot continued for 25 days. That is a period in the history of Manchester which no one will forget.
I must stress that, long before 1 April 1990, the Prison Officers Association insisted that overcrowding and bad sanitary conditions were the main cause of unrest and that

433
one day we would pay the penalty. I can remember a prison officer saying to me, "If conditions do not change, these prisoners will be coming through the wall." I was at Strangeways prison on the fateful Sunday. Like human moles, the prisoners were coming out of the roof of the prison.
Then, as now, the experts went unheeded. Instead of listening and learning, the Government have taken the unknown path—the murky market, as it has been described—to privatise the prisons. Once again, dogma reigns supreme with the Government. Experts tell us that privatisation is unhelpful and irrelevant to running today's prison regimes.
In 1989, in a submission to the Government's Green Paper, the Prison Officers Association outlined the crisis and emphasised that the real cause of the ever-increasing prison population had never been addressed, only the symptoms. Regrettably, only the symptoms are still being considered today.
As the House has heard, the Government know best. Market testing of prisons, which is another name for privatisation, is seen as the panacea for all our prison ills, yet the Government know full well that contracting out will not affect the ever-increasing population. That remains the responsibility of the courts, the judges and magistrates. There is little liaison between judges and magistrates.
I have the tender documents with me, if the Home Secretary wants to see them. Given the details of the contract requirements in the documents, it is envisaged that there will be overcrowding. Today's edition of The Guardian quotes from the document for the operating contract for Her Majesty's prison, Manchester and comes to the same conclusions. The document informs the contractors that they should assume an overall population of 552 prisoners in the five A to E wings of the prison, but the authority may require all cells with a toilet annexe to be occupied by two prisoners, although they may be designed for single-cell occupation. They are contemplating overcrowding and that would provide an additional 134 places, increasing the population in those wings to 686.
Further accommodation could be provided by requiring that some of the cells without a toilet annexe be occupied by two prisoners. The contractor is invited to specify the additional cost in those five wings.
The other wings—G, H, I and K—were built to hold 261 places, when opened. In the contract—as with A to E wings—overcrowding has to be taken into the reckoning and costed accordingly. Even the health centre is included, to provide for 53 patients, but no assurance could be given that they would not be used for non-medical cases.
Compare the requirements in the tender contract to the Home Office letter of 24 April 1991, replying to my inquiry regarding the single-cell policy in prisons. The then Minister of State informed me:
"The present policy of providing for a majority of single cells offers prisoners a degree of privacy, and encourages them to develop a sense of responsibility for the accommodation they occupy. However, we recognise that a mixture of single and shared accommodation is necessary. … At Manchester, in response to local circumstances, management has allowed for a higher proportion of shared accommodation than the standard design in the remand prison. In K wing about 20% of cells are fitted for two prisoners to share, and current plans for G, H and I wings envisage close to 50% of cells being capable of taking two prisoners."
434
In other words, overcrowding has been built into the contract. Whatever the Home Secretary says, he cannot get away from that.
The contractors will also have to be aware of the special accommodation for category A prisoners required at the Crown court in Manchester, which they will have to man. All other support facilities will be the responsibility of the private contractor. That aspect of prison work will be an untested area, but the closest liaison with the Greater Manchester police will be necessary to ensure the smooth running of the courts.
Accommodation at the courts, liaison with court users, manning requirements and escorting prisoners to courts or to other prisons, hospitals, funerals and so forth will be undertaken without the in-depth experience gained over many years by the Prison Officers Association.
Strangeways, by its very nature, has always been a transit prison with a quicker population turnover and therefore it requires more labour-intensive activities, such as the duties that I have outlined.
Private prisons, whether based on the ideology of Adam Smith or on the American way of life, are not the answer. Out will go the dedication, the responsibility and accountability. The years of practical experience will have been wasted. Many years before the riot, experienced officers warned about what was to be expected. But Governments paid no heed, and we experienced the biggest riots in prison history. Those of us who visited the prison after 25 days saw the mass destruction. But at least there was optimism that there would be a rebuild and new thinking. Above all, it was unanimously agreed that such a thing must never happen again.
After the results of all the interviews had been taken into consideration, the Woolf report recommended a format for the establishment of new procedures. The report said that there should be a 3 per cent. ceiling on overcrowding and that that figure should not be exceeded without reference to Parliament.
In July 1992, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and other interested Members, I visited Strangeways and witnessed the refurbishment. We saw the gymnasium and the canteen facilities. It was as if things were starting anew. The Government's attitude, of course, was that the prison was ripe for privatisation. Following our visit we were convinced that the Home Office was drawing up plans to that effect.
The Prison Officers Association was unaware of the policy for the future. At that time there had been no discussions with the association. No one was prepared to inform it of what was going on. The officers were working in limbo, and morale was at a new low. The Home Office was non-committal. It told me that it was anticipated that a decision would be taken later in the summer. With every phone call I made to the Home Office, the mystery deepened.
In late summer—on 4 August, just six days after our visit—the front page of the Manchester Evening News had the story. The cat was out of the bag. The Home Office's privatisation plan had been revealed in a job description memo for a new national post of prison manager. One of the prisons named was Strangeways. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the Home Secretary to laugh. He should have been there at the time. His predecessor never came. The prison officers held, and then evacuated the prison. There was no escape.

435
The officers, who, with their families, suffered great mental and physical stress, have been betrayed, sold down the river. They arc the victims of an ill thought out scheme. On a previous occasion the Prison Officers Association stated that the privatisation of prisons was ethically dubious and would lead to lower standards. I, along with the prison officers, maintain that privatisation will not, and cannot, cope with overcrowding.
The findings of Lord Justice Woolf have been ignored. What has happened to the 12 main recommendations? The views of the prison officers too have been ignored. We still have the recipe for riots. The Government have not learnt the lesson of Strangeways 1990. They may once again rue the day. But the Home Secretary will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, as the then Home Secretary did in April 1990.
11.8 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary's awareness of the condition of prisons in Britain and of the need to implement Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations as soon as possible are not in question. Indeed, among hon. Members there is an almost unanimous view that prisons are one of the darker corners of our society. That does not apply universally, but there are massive problems, which were highlighted in Lord Justice Woolf's report. In setting out, in contractual terms, the objectives for Manchester Strangeways, Lord Justice Woolf properly drew attention to what was needed.
In introducing this order, the Home Secretary is acting with undue precipitousness and without evidence to support his general assertion that the prisons will benefit from extension of private sector management and control.
Arguments of principle were eloquently and effectively made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the appropriateness of placing such matters in the hands of private contractors, who run prisons for profit. Prisoners who are causing trouble have to be manhandled—that is not a purely theoretical issue. The exact nature of the job undertaken by the private sector company has already become clear in the management of the Wolds prison. A recent parliamentary answer reported no fewer than 20 incidents, many of which involved assaults on officers, drug smuggling into the prison, racial discrimination and hostility—many of the characteristics of prison life that cause problems throughout the country.
It must be doubted whether it is suitable to put the task of attending to such problems in the hands of a private company operating for profit and without the normal arrangements for accountability that control the response of the prison service.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Obviously, the power that is given to one person to restrain another and keep him in custody depends on the authority of the law, which is ultimately derived from the House. That is the only means by which anybody can lawfully lock someone else up or contain him. That is dependent not on whether or not he is on the public payroll, but on whether he is working by the same rules. Even in private prisons, the use of force and coercive powers can be applied only with the authority of the controller, who is based there as a Crown servant to ensure that matters, particularly the use of force, are closely supervised.
Mr. Maclennan: It is open to a private citizen to use force to restrain a member of the public who is committing a crime. The Home Secretary need not teach his grandmother tricks on such a matter. The question whether it is appropriate to place prison guards in a position where they have to use force as a matter of course, day in, day out, without the advantage of the professional training that has gone into the building up of the prison service, is at least debatable. Many people doubt that it is a suitable policy.
The Home Secretary did not allude to the risk of abuse being covered up for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Questions have been asked in the House about Wolds prison and its management, and answers have been refused on the grounds that they would reveal commercially confidential information. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), who is now talking to the Home Secretary, knows that to be true.
He has refused to answer questions, saying that he will not give information to Members of Parliament about the management of that private prison because it is commercially confidential. He has been asked questions about staffing levels and the chaplain, and replied that such matters are commercially confidential. That is a means of taking away from Parliament the right to scrutinise the management and conduct of our prison service. That alone is sufficient reason for being dubious about what is planned.
This is the last opportunity that the House has to prevent, or even discuss, the Home Secretary's decision to award contracts for the management of any prison he chooses. Whatever else the right hon. and learned Gentleman is no one would flatter him by calling him prudent. Tonight he made a prediction about the prison population which many of his predecessors would have thought rather rash. We shall see whether he is proved right, but a prudent Home Secretary would have waited to see how the Wolds experiment worked out and how Blakenhurst worked out before invoking the dogma that competition is best and extending the scope of privatisation to prisons already built and being run as part of the prison service. He did not even wait to allow Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons the time to conduct a visit to the Wolds prison and issue a report on it.
The Home Secretary accuses the hon. Member for Sedgefield of dogmatism, and of being doctrinaire. The reverse is the truth. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not interested in a pragmatic evaluation of the experiments on which he has embarked. He is forcing through the House a measure designed to give him untrammelled authority to award commercial contracts to companies that will not disclose to the House how they propose to proceed. I think that that is irresponsible. It is almost inconceivable that any sensible Home Secretary would take such a decision—indeed, his predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, explicitly repudiated the idea in principle.
The Home Secretary, however, is playing other games. He needs to prove his credentials as a sort of remaining Thatcherite. I dare say he will assume a number of different postures over the next few months in an attempt to further his political ambitions.
The new head of the executive agency, Mr. Derek Lewis, has not been instructed, as the first act of the Secretary of State, to implement the provisions of the

437
Woolf report. He has been instructed to carry out the doctrine of the Government, to facilitate the participation of the private sector in prison management.
This is a very odd priority, when there is so much wrong with the prisons and when it is clear that we are far short of fulfilling the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf in so many prisons around the country. It is also clear from all the reports produced by Mr. Justice Tumim that efforts are being made in the service by prison officers to overcome the difficulties. If the Home Secretary would deal with the problems of the prison service with the commitment that he has shown to extending to another sphere of public service the dogmas of Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, he would be performing the role that he should be discharging at this time.
I hope that the House will reject this order tonight.
11.18 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not know about sucking eggs, but there was a moment in the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when I thought that he was about to lay one. He certainly offered no suggestions as to how the prison service might be improved.
I have only one interest to declare: it is in my interests that none of the unfortunate people whom I have the privilege to defend, though they be innocent, should ever end up in any kind of prison, state maintained or privately contracted.
I have been here for many years and nothing surprises me about the Opposition, but in this debate they have come close to surprising me. For many years they have demanded more humane prison conditions, which they never achieved when they were in power. Every day for years they have demanded better working conditions for prison officers. They have always demanded for prisoners better regimes—no slopping out, daily hot showers, more privacy, better food, rehabilitation, training and education, and fewer wasted hours in prison cells. They have also asked for pilot schemes. They never achieved any of those benefits and now that they are being offered, the Opposition do not want them. What they have said for many years has turned out to be wind.
When Labour was in power from 1974 to 1979 it cut capital spending on the prisons by 20 per cent. although the prison population rose by 15 per cent. Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on these matters, really imagine that statutory minimum standards for prisoners, which the Labour Government never achieved, an independent ombudsman, which they never thought of, more spending, which they could never achieve, are substitutes for better prison management? Are they substitutes for the dynamism that contracting out will bring to our prison service? With that will come funding and proven achievements because of the success of the Wolds prison.
The Government have increased the number of prison officers by 70 per cent., but the prison population has risen by only 3 per cent. They have the largest prison building programme of all time, they appointed Judge Tumim and commissioned the Woolf report. They are committed to improving prison conditions, not just for prisoners but for those who run the prisons—the members of the Prison Officers Association. They made sure, through the Criminal Justice Act 1991, that they will remain
438
accountable for standards, for monitoring, adjudication and discipline, and for ensuring that prison officers are properly trained and certified as such before they are let loose on the prison population. The Government deserve the support of the whole House.
The Government want what the Opposition have been demanding, crying for, over all the years that I have been here. As I have said, their pleas have turned out to be mere wind. They are obsessed by party dogma, and for the sake of that dogma they are determined to make sure that the prison system deteriorates, as it always did under them.
11.23 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason: As a member of the all-party penal affairs group, I had not intended to speak in the debate. However, I decided to do so in view of the attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). My right hon. Friend is chairman of the penal affairs group and probably knows more about prisons than any hon. Member. He was also a prison governor, and perhaps modesty prevented him from making known those two facts.
The Wolds has been an outstanding success. If the Opposition want proof of that, they should ask the prisoners, who would rather be sent to the Wolds prison than to any other in the United Kingdom. The appointment of the new director of the prison service is imaginative. Derek Lewis has a fine reputation in his industry and I welcome not just his appointment but the fact that the prison service is to have agency status. That will be good for the staff and management of our prisons, and good for the prisoners.
I believe that a year from now all the prison reform charities, and those who have a direct interest in the prison service and the welfare of prisoners, will also welcome these imaginative moves from a Home Secretary who, I suspect, although I am not one of his greatest fans, will be recognised in a few years' time as one who has done more for our prisons than any other Home Secretary this century.
11.25 pm
Mrs. Barbara Roche: I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, on which I have the honour to serve, so it was in my interest to follow his speech carefully.
I was fascinated by the hon. and learned Gentleman's utopian picture of what the Government have in store for us with tremendously improved conditions for both staff and prisoners. Yet according to an article in The Guardian today, the full prison complement is 971 for Strangeways, but the contractors are to be asked to bid for provision of places for 1,150 prisoners. The Home Office's comment on this overcrowding was:
"Many prisoners like sharing cells, or they feel lonely."
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady may not have been here earlier, when we dealt with the point about overcrowding. The point keeps being made, but the fact is that every prison has to make some contingency provision for overcrowding, because we have no control over the numbers sent by the courts. If we made no provision at the prison, it would be argued that the private sector was being exempted from making provision that every other prison

439
has to make. It is a contingency provision, whereby about 70 cells will be doubled up if the courts ever send an excess of prisoners. Currently, overcrowding in the whole system is lower than it has been for years, and we are determined to keep it at that level.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful for that information, although I have been present since the beginning of the debate. I note, however, that the copy of the contract for the running of the new prison reveals that the Home Office wants the first phase to accommodate 789 prisoners, 116 more than it was designed to take. That is unacceptable.
When dealing with prison privatisation, Ministers appear to be influenced by the American experience—
Mr. Edward Gamier: I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady's speech. Is she basing her arguments on what The Guardian says, or on the contract that she has in her hand—if she has it in her hand?
Mrs. Roche: I had moved on from that point, but I am willing to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Yes, I am basing my arguments on the article in The Guardian, but I noted that the Home Secretary did not repudiate the basis of the article, although he was free to do so.
I was talking about the American experience of prisons. An obnoxious example is the involvement in some United States prisons of companies such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, which have been involved in tenders and, indeed, the running of some prisons. Is that not a bizarre and atrocious way to run the system? The American experience also shows evidence of malpractice. In 1989, the state of Texas opened four minimum security prisons; a 1990 audit found that the companies had failed to implement promised educational and job training programmes. I do not know whether the Secretary of State reads The Wall Street Journal but it commented:
"Once hailed as the quick fix for the nations' overcrowded prisons, privatisation is turning into quicksand for the companies and communities involved."
The then Minister with responsibility for prisons, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), promised in February 1991 that further prison privatisation would go ahead if,
"and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success."—[Official Report, 25 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 720.]
Perhaps we should examine that a little more carefully.
Wolds was described as a prison which would provide revolutionary new standards for prisoners and staff. It certainly appears to have been funded at great expense to the taxpayer, although of course we do not know the exact figures because the Government will not reveal them. On 19 December, the Financial Times reported that York crown court had heard that a remand prisoner was tortured and injected with heroin by other inmates at the Wolds. The judge, His Honour Gordon Atkinson, said that he had received a letter outlining what had happened to the man at
"this so-called up-to-date prison."
He commented that the letter disclosed a "deplorable state of affairs".
We hear none of that as the Government laud what is happening in the Wolds. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked last week about the incidents and disturbances at the Wolds since 1
440
December 1992. The Minister of State listed 20 separate occurrences in that six-week period, including more than one incident in which a prisoner was assaulted by "assailants unknown".
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady might be interested to know that there have been 62 incidents in the past 12 months. That sounds a lot, but in the prison service everything is recorded as an incident. There have been 17,657 incidents in the prison service as a whole. In 1992, the average number of incidents per week at the Wolds was 1.3. The prison service average is 2.6—precisely double.
Mrs. Roche: Again, I am extremely grateful for the Home Secretary's intervention. It is always good to get information that we have been seeking for some time. Of course, the Home Secretary did not say that the Wolds is a remand prison, where one would perhaps expect a lower rate of such incidents.
It cannot be denied—I should be the last to deny it—that there is a crisis in our prisons. As shown in Lord Justice Woolf's excellent report and proposals, and in Judge Stephen Tumim's 1991 report, much needs to be done. Conditions in many prisons are entirely unacceptable. We should be establishing statutory minimum standards for prisons, in addition to an urgent programme of refurbishment.
However, we do not need the privatisation of prisons. The Secretary of State announced recently in answer to a parliamentary question, on 1 February 1993:
"when the Prison Service becomes an executive agency on 1 April it should assume full responsibility for taking forward Government policy on the involvement of the private sector in the management of prisons."—[Official Report, 1 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 55.]
There has been no press conference about this. The Government have no desire to come clean about their twin-track approach to prisons.
It will also be instructive to see how the contracts for the management of the prison service are to be handed out and to see which of the Secretary of State's friends—honourable and otherwise—get the plum directorships that will arise from prison privatisation. Just as the privatised utilities have given lucrative directorships to ex-Cabinet Ministers, so the Government seem to intend to hive off the prison service to their friends.
For example, Tarmac, a well known donor of thousands of pounds to the Tory party, is involved in Group 4 which runs the Wolds. It is interesting that the latest Register of Members' Interests lists the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the chairman of the Conservative party, as a non-executive director of Group 4 Securitas. Similarly, McAlpine, a stalwart when it comes to donating funds to Tory party coffers, is involved in the private security firm, UK Detention Services Ltd., which completed the design and build contract for the Wolds.
The reputation of the private security firms to which Ministers want to hand over our prisons does not inspire confidence. I note that a senior official of a private security trade association told the Select Committee on Defence in May 1990 that private guards are lucky to have two days' training. That is the situation that we shall have in our prisons.
Surely the commercial interests of private prison bosses run counter to the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations and proposals about equipping prisoners with the

441
skills and qualifications to increase their chances of re-integrating successfully into society. As Stephen Shaw, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:
"Managers … will be more accountable to shareholders 5,000 miles away than to the British public and the British Parliament."
It is a great pity that the Government did not listen to the previous Home Secretary, who said that there was not a case for prison privatisation. The British public would have felt safer and more secure with a proper accountable system, instead of commercialisation for private profit.
11.36 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: At times during the debate, it has seemed to me that people have forgotten what the order is about: it is not about whether a particular prison building is new, modern or efficient, but about the extension of privatisation across the whole of the prison service.
I start from the point of view which I suspect many of my hon. Friends share; that it is mildly repugnant that private contractors should be making profits from keeping people in prison. That is what the order is about. Private contractors do not operate if they are not likely to make a profit. We all agree that standards need to be improved, that we need more enlightened regimes, that we need to cut the number of people in prison and that we need new prison buildings. No one disputes that, but the order is not about building new prisons; it is about privatising the existing prison service.
Let us consider the debate and the order in context. What has been said in previous debates on the topic? In 1987, the then Home Secretary completely ruled out privatisation. The 1988 Green Paper ruled out privatisation except for new remand prisons. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 as originally drafted followed that Green Paper.
It was only as a result of the Government's accepting Back-Bench amendments during our proceedings on the Bill that became that Act that privatisation across the whole service became a possibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) pointed out, the Minister of the time made the following very important statement:
"If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service."—[Official Report, 25 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 720.]
What evidence is there that the experiment at the Wolds and that at Blakenhurst, which has hardly started, have been a success? That is the question that the Government should be answering tonight.
At the time of the debate in 1991, senior civil servants said—no doubt with ministerial approval—that it would take three years for a proper assessment of the success of the Wolds to be made. In November last year, I was told in answer to a parliamentary question that Hull university was conducting a two-year survey to assess the success of the Wolds—again, no doubt, with Home Office approval. So where is the evidence? What information is available? I simply do not believe that people who claim that the system is now more accountable have considered what has been happening in the past six months.
For example, we know that the Wolds has not been running at full capacity. There were 233 prisoners in the Wolds in November, when the capacity is 320. At that time, the Government extended the Wolds catchment area
442
in an attempt to fill the prison. How do we measure the success of a prison that has never operated at the capac0ity that it was designed to operate at?
We have been told that there are 196 staff at the Wolds. However, when we ask how many staff there are in each category, how many prison custody officers and caterers, we are told that we cannot have that information because it is commercially confidential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) referred to health and psychiatric care. Health care at the Wolds is subcontracted by Group 4 to a French-owned medical company, and we cannot be told the costs or details of that contract because it is commercially confidential information.
The Crown controller will examine the service delivery at the Wolds against the contract. However, we will not be able to do that. We will not be allowed to see the Crown controller's report measuring service delivery against the contract because that is commercially confidential information. We know that Group 4 is being paid, but we cannot be told how much, because that is commercially confidential information.
The definition of commercial confidentiality is preventing hon. Members from discovering what is happening in the Wolds. A day visit to the prison will not help. One simply cannot obtain the information.
How much does it cost to keep people in the Wolds or in Blakenhurst? How does that compare with the state sector? What are the manpower costs per inmate? We have a right to answers to those questions. I find it difficult to comprehend how we are supposed to be able to judge value for money without that information.
Exactly the same problems arise in connection with judging standards. We want higher standards, but it is pointless for hon. Members to compare a brand new remand prison like the Wolds with an old overcrowded state sector prison and claim that that proves that the private sector is a success. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves absolutely nothing.
We know that there have been problems at that prison, and that incidents have occurred there that could occur at any prison. The Government's policy is more concerned with dogma than with penal policy or the improvement of prison conditions. The policy seems to be to hive off new prisons; remand-only prisons first and then new prisons for convicted prisoners and refurbished prisons like Strangeways; keep them under-occupied in the first instance and then compare them to an old, overcrowded, under-staffed prison and claim that the former are successful.
The people who stand to benefit are the private contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned UK Detention Services Ltd., which runs Blakenhurst. That company is a conglomerate under Corrections Corporation of America. The chairman of that company was tied in with the Republican party which lobbied the Adam Smith Institute in the 1980s to get privatisation on the agenda. In 1991, that company gave a commitment in writing to its shareholders to spend CCA dollars
"only where they have the greatest chance for financial gain."
Such companies are interested only in financial gain. Other people in that conglomerate are the Mowlems and the McAlpines—well-known people who have run prisons

443
for many years. The holding company, Newarthill, and UK Detention Services, McAlpine and Mowlem are all contributors to the Tory party.
It is all about private profit. That is what is going on. It is nothing to do with improving conditions. If we were really interested in improving conditions, we would be making sure that the Woolf report was implemented right throughout the prison sector—not picking out private prisons and making sure that they succeed. The Woolf report was accepted by every one.
Instead, we have privatisation that is opposed by governors, prison officers, prison teachers, prison chaplains and everybody concerned with the prison service. The Government should be making sure that they are directing their energy into implementing the Woolf agenda right through the prison service, uniting the prison service and delivering—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (exempted business):—
The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 235.

Division No. 140]

[10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Couchman, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cran, James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Amess, David

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Ancram, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arbuthnot, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Day, Stephen

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Ashby, David

Devlin, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Dickens, Geoffrey

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baldry, Tony

Dover, Den

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Duncan, Alan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bates, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Batiste, Spencer

Durant, Sir Anthony

Beggs, Roy

Dykes, Hugh

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Elletson, Harold

Beresford, Sir Paul

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Booth, Hartley

Evennett, David

Boswell, Tim

Faber, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, Andrew

Fishburn, Dudley

Bowis, John

Forman, Nigel

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brandreth, Gyles

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bright, Graham

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Freeman, Roger

Browning, Mrs. Angela

French, Douglas

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gale, Roger

Burns, Simon

Gallie, Phil

Burt, Alistair

Gardiner, Sir George

Butcher, John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Butler, Peter

Garnier, Edward

Butterfill, John

Gill, Christopher

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gillan, Cheryl

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carrington, Matthew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Cash, William

Gorst, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clappison, James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hague, William

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Coe, Sebastian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Colvin, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Congdon, David

Hannam, Sir John

Conway, Derek

Hargreaves, Andrew

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Harris, David

418

Haselhurst, Alan

Needham, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Nelson, Anthony

Hawksley, Warren

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Heald, Oliver

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hendry, Charles

Norris, Steve

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hicks, Robert

Oppenheim, Phillip

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Ottaway, Richard

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Page, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Paice, James

Horam, John

Patnick, Irvine

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jack, Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jenkin, Bernard

Redwood, John

Jessel, Toby

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Key, Robert

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knapman, Roger

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knox, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lidington, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Madel, David

Stephen, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stern, Michael

Major, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan

Malone, Gerald

Streeter, Gary

Mans, Keith

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Sweeney, Walter

Marlow, Tony

Sykes, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thomason, Roy

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Milligan, Stephen

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mills, Iain

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Moate, Sir Roger

Tracey, Richard

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

419

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wilkinson, John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Waterson, Nigel

Wolfson, Mark

Watts, John

Wood, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Mr. Andrew McKay.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ainger, Nick

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

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Denham, John

Allen, Graham

Dewar, Donald

Alton, David

Dixon, Don

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dobson, Frank

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Armstrong, Hilary

Dowd, Jim

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ashton, Joe

Eastham, Ken

Austin-Walker, John

Enright, Derek

Barnes, Harry

Etherington, Bill

Battle, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bayley, Hugh

Fatchett, Derek

Beckett, Margaret

Fisher, Mark

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Flynn, Paul

Bell, Stuart

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Foulkes, George

Benton, Joe

Fraser, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Fyfe, Maria

Berry, Dr. Roger

Galbraith, Sam

Betts, Clive

Galloway, George

Blair, Tony

Gapes, Mike

Blunkett, David

Garrett, John

Boateng, Paul

George, Bruce

Boyce, Jimmy

Gerrard, Neil

Boyes, Roland

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bradley, Keith

Godsiff, Roger

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Gordon, Mildred

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Gould, Bryan

Burden, Richard

Graham, Thomas

Byers, Stephen

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hain, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hall, Mike

Canavan, Dennis

Hanson, David

Cann, Jamie

Harman, Ms Harriet

Chisholm, Malcolm

Harvey, Nick

Clapham, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Henderson, Doug

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Heppell, John

Clelland, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ann

Hoey, Kate

Cohen, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Connarty, Michael

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Doug

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cryer, Bob

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

Ingram, Adam

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Davidson, Ian

Jamieson, David

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Janner, Greville

420

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Prescott, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Purchase, Ken

Jowell, Tessa

Quin, Ms Joyce

Keen, Alan

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Randall, Stuart

Khabra, Piara S.

Raynsford, Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Leighton, Ron

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rogers, Allan

Litherland, Robert

Rooker, Jeff

Livingstone, Ken

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Rowlands, Ted

Lynne, Ms Liz

Ruddock, Joan

McAllion, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheerman, Barry

McCartney, Ian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Short, Clare

McFall, John

Simpson, Alan

McKelvey, William

Skinner, Dennis

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Maclennan, Robert

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McMaster, Gordon

Snape, Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Soley, Clive

McWilliam, John

Spearing, Nigel

Madden, Max

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mandelson, Peter

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Marek, Dr John

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stevenson, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Stott, Roger

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Martlew, Eric

Straw, Jack

Meacher, Michael

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michael, Alun

Tipping, Paddy

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Turner, Dennis

Milburn, Alan

Tyler, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Vaz, Keith

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wallace, James

Morgan, Rhodri

Walley, Joan

Morley, Elliot

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Wareing, Robert N

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Watson, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wicks, Malcolm

Mowlam, Marjorie

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Mudie, George

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mullin, Chris

Wilson, Brian

Murphy, Paul

Winnick, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wise, Audrey

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Worthington, Tony

O'Hara, Edward

Wray, Jimmy

Olner, William

Wright, Dr Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pendry, Tom

Pickthall, Colin

Tellers for the Noes:

Pike, Peter L.

Mr. Alan Meale and

Pope, Greg

Mr. John Spellar.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Division No. 141]

[11.45 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Aitken, Jonathan

Churchill, Mr

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Clappison, James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amess, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Ancram, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Arbuthnot, James

Coe, Sebastian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Colvin, Michael

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Congdon, David

Ashby, David

Conway, Derek

Aspinwall, Jack

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Baldry, Tony

Couchman, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Cran, James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bates, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Batiste, Spencer

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bellingham, Henry

Day, Stephen

Bendall, Vivian

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Beresford, Sir Paul

Devlin, Tim

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dorrell, Stephen

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Body, Sir Richard

Dover, Den

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Duncan, Alan

Booth, Hartley

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Boswell, Tim

Dunn, Bob

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Eggar, Tim

Bowden, Andrew

Elletson, Harold

Bowis, John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bright, Graham

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Evennett, David

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Faber, David

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fabricant, Michael

Burns, Simon

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Burt, Alistair

Fishburn, Dudley

Butler, Peter

Forman, Nigel

Butterfill, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carrington, Matthew

Freeman, Roger

Carttiss, Michael

French, Douglas

Cash, William

Gale, Roger

444

Gallie, Phil

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gardiner, Sir George

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Garnier, Edward

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Gill, Christopher

Merchant, Piers

Gillan, Cheryl

Milligan, Stephen

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mills, Iain

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Moate, Sir Roger

Gorst, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Moss, Malcolm

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Needham, Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Nelson, Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, William

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Norris, Steve

Hannam, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hargreaves, Andrew

Oppenheim, Phillip

Harris, David

Ottaway, Richard

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Paice, James

Hawksley, Warren

Patnick, Irvine

Hayes, Jerry

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heald, Oliver

Pawsey, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hendry, Charles

Pickles, Eric

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Horam, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Redwood, John

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

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Richards, Rod

Hunter, Andrew

Riddick, Graham

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robathan, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jessel, Toby

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sackville, Tom

Key, Robert

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kilfedder, Sir James

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knapman, Roger

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Sims, Roger

Knox, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Legg, Barry

Spink, Dr Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spring, Richard

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Sproat, Iain

Lidington, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lord, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Luff, Peter

Stephen, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stern, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan

MacKay, Andrew

Streeter, Gary

Maclean, David

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sykes, John

Madel, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marland, Paul

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marlow, Tony

Thomason, Roy

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

445

Thurnham, Peter

Whittingdale, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Widdecombe, Ann

Tracey, Richard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Tredinnick, David

Wilkinson, John

Trend, Michael

Willetts, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Wolfson, Mark

Walden, George

Wood, Timothy

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Yeo, Tim

Waterson, Nigel

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Whitney, Ray

Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

Ainger, Nick

Dalyell, Tam

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Darling, Alistair

Allen, Graham

Davidson, Ian

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Armstrong, Hilary

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ashton, Joe

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

Austin-Walker, John

Denham, John

Barnes, Harry

Dewar, Donald

Battle, John

Dixon, Don

Bayley, Hugh

Donohoe, Brian H.

Beckett, Margaret

Dowd, Jim

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bell, Stuart

Eastham, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Enright, Derek

Bennett, Andrew F

Etherington, Bill

Benton, Joe

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Fatchett, Derek

Berry, Dr. Roger

Fisher, Mark

Betts, Clive

Flynn, Paul

Blair, Tony

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Blunkett, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boateng, Paul

Fraser, John

Boyce, Jimmy

Fyfe, Maria

Boyes, Roland

Galloway, George

Bradley, Keith

Gapes, Mike

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Garrett, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

George, Bruce

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Gerrard, Neil

Burden, Richard

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Byers, Stephen

Godsiff, Roger

Caborn, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Callaghan, Jim

Gordon, Mildred

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gould, Bryan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Graham, Thomas

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cann, Jamie

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grocott, Bruce

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hain, Peter

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hall, Mike

Clelland, David

Hanson, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Harman, Ms Harriet

Coffey, Ann

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cohen, Harry

Henderson, Doug

Connarty, Michael

Heppell, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hinchliffe, David

Corbett, Robin

Hoey, Kate

Corbyn, Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Cousins, Jim

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cryer, Bob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

446

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Olner, William

Hoyle, Doug

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pike, Peter L.

Hutton, John

Pope, Greg

Illsley, Eric

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Ingram, Adam

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Prescott, John

Jamieson, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Janner, Greville

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Raynsford, Nick

Jowell, Tessa

Reid, Dr John

Keen, Alan

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Khabra, Piara S.

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rogers, Allan

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Rooney, Terry

Kirkwood, Archy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Leighton, Ron

Rowlands, Ted

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Ruddock, Joan

Lewis, Terry

Sheerman, Barry

Litherland, Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Livingstone, Ken

Short, Clare

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Simpson, Alan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Skinner, Dennis

Lynne, Ms Liz

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAllion, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCartney, Ian

Snape, Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McFall, John

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Spellar, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Maclennan, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McMaster, Gordon

Steinberg, Gerry

McNamara, Kevin

Stevenson, George

McWilliam, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Madden, Max

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mandelson, Peter

Tipping, Paddy

Marek, Dr John

Turner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wallace, James

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Walley, Joan

Martlew, Eric

Wardell Gareth (Gower)

Meacher, Michael

Wareing, Robert N

Michael, Alun

Watson, Mike

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wicks, Malcolm

Milburn, Alan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Miller, Andrew

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Winnick, David

Morgan, Rhodri

Wise, Audrey

Morley, Elliot

Wolfson, Mark

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Worthington, Tony

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wray, Jimmy

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wright, Dr Tony

Mudie, George

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Tellers for the Noes:

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Mr. Alan Meale.

O'Hara, Edward

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1991 Contracted Out Prisons) (No. 2) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Matter of unemployment in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Ordered,
That, in the course of its consideration of the Matter of the structure of government in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee may meet in Cardiff on Monday 8th March at Eleven o'clock and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the Committee shall have leave at that sitting to sit until half-past Three o'clock.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Wheel Clamping
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.58 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the problems associated with wheel clamping, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) is here, because he initiated a debate last July on this subject, to which I want to refer.
On 26 June last year, the Automobile Association sent a letter to members which read as follows:
"Wheelclamping cars parked on private land and demanding money for their release, recently outlawed in Scotland, is spiralling out of control in England and Wales.
The Automobile Association is currently pursuing an incident in which the extortionate sum of £240 was demanded for the release of a car. This is only one of many such cases of wheelclamping blackmail."
I understand that there are now more than 1,000 wheel-clamping firms in action, affecting every part of the country.
Almost eight months ago, a debate was introduced, as I mentioned initially, by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West, who, I trust, will be making a contribution tonight. This is what the Minister said in response to the debate, the self-same Minister who is sitting on the Treasury Bench tonight:
"It struck me that many of the attitudes displayed to the problem are akin to acts of piracy. Perhaps I could add another description: we may be dealing with parking pirates … I cannot offer a firm conclusion on some of the issues this afternoon because they raise untested areas of the law. However, I underline my assurance that the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed are being urgently considered."
Later, on the question of the Scottish court decision, the Minister said that it had found
"that private wheel clamping amounts to extortion and theft under Scottish law, and we are currently considering the implications of that judgment for England and Wales."
Lastly, the Minister said,
"I appreciate hon. Members' frustration that the situation is not clearer. Indeed, I share that frustration—I have seen some such situations for myself—but I assure them that we are considering the matter urgently, including the question whether any action is needed to prohibit or to regulate the use of wheel clamps on private property."—[Official Report, 16 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 1260 and 1262.]
That was eight months ago, and yet the subject has been examined by the Home Office urgently. I wonder how many years it takes when the Home Office looks at a subject at its normal pace. If this is urgent, it must be years before it concludes a routine examination.
I wrote to the Minister on 18 December last year, and I received a reply dated 20 January this year. Again, the Government said that they are
"giving urgent consideration to this issue, as a result of the cases of abuse brought to our attention and the considerable public concern that has been expressed over recent months … In addition, we have sought expert advice as to the extent to which current legal provisions might be sufficient to deal with the problems associated with wheel clamping … We now plan to carry out a public consultation exercise on a range of options that has been identified. We are working as rapidly as possible to agree within Government the text of a detailed paper to form the basis of that wider consultation."
In view of the lapse of time, the Home Office seems blithely unaware or uncaring of the dangers that wheel clamping creates. This is the law-and-order Government who have
450
done nothing while a menace to ordinary, decent people grows. I want to quote some examples of these circumstances and situations.
I received a letter from a vicar in my constituency in which he said,
"Recently I discovered the horrors of being clamped. Apart from the total inconvenience, I was very concerned about the implications of it all."
And so say all of us.
"Over a few weeks I had parked on a piece of waste ground for a few hours. About 20 cars used this site, which had the remains of a petrol kiosk and has been used for a long time. Once blocked off, it had a ?by custom? entrance established. My concerns are these. It is obviously in the clamping firm's interest to do their job in such a way that they catch people. I note on their form that I am described as a Customer. I cannot believe that it is proper for policing to be carried out by someone who has an interest in this way. The signs were cleverly placed. Once clamped they were obvious, unchallengeable, but I could also see that they were in places where the driver's eye on entrance would not think of looking. I avoid places where clamping signs are in evidence. A simple chain and padlock would have sufficed, with a sign at the entrance. I was trapped, so that they made their money. They did well—most of the other drivers were caught too. The description of the ticket as a Parking fine also concerns me. Surely the Courts alone have the right to levy fines? Why can a private company do this, without legal process? The size of the 'fine' is in my view very high. Out of all proportion to a Parking Ticket, for instance. Who sets this figure, might it be £75 next month? I really am concerned that we seem to have another force of law and order here that seems to be outside the Courts' jurisdiction."
I have many more letters, but I do not have time to quote the whole range. The letters I am quoting happen to be from Bradford, which is the area I represent, but I have letters from all over the country. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West is in the House demonstrates the widespread nature of this plague which affects so many people.
This letter is from a man who lives at Hipperholme. He visited the Alhambra theatre in Bradford which I should have thought was a fairly harmless occupation. He wrote:
"I, therefore, found an area of what I took to be derelict land near the University, some half a mile away, and parked, along with about ten other vehicles."
It was derelict land. We are not talking about developed land or land on which cars are being used and an obstruction is being created; it is derelict land. The letter goes on:
"Three hours later, at about 10.15 pm we returned to our car to find that it had been 'wheel-clamped'. Had I not first noticed a nearby vehicle had been 'wheel-clamped' I would never have been alerted to the fact that my own vehicle was also 'clamped' and I would have attempted to drive off and presumably damaged my car. There was no notice or sticker on my car window to draw attention to the 'wheel-clamp'.
I eventually found a small faded notice, nailed to a fence, outlining the fact that 'wheel-clamping' took place in that area. I rang the first number on the notice from a nearby phone box to find that it was 'not available'. The second number was a mobile phone number which seemed to gobble up my dwindling supply of change. All they were interested in was how I was going to pay their £50 charge before they would release me.
I had little cash, no cheque book and no bank cards on me. To say I was getting distraught is an understatement. I could only think of getting my wife and children safely home. Fortunately my wife had a bank card but had to go a considerable distance to locate an appropriate Cash Dispenser."
A woman was forced to wander the streets of Bradford late at night. She was close to a spot where an especially

451
vicious rape had taken place a month before. It is a frightening prospect for people when faced with clamping late at night. The writer says:
"There was no notice visible anywhere on the land and nothing near the exit to alert me … Surely better signing should be made a legal requirement … Surely if whoever owns the land doesn't want people on it, they should take steps to chain or barrier it off at such times.
3. The obsession of the firm (West Yorkshire Outdoor Security Services) for full payment before releasing me was frightening. They refused to invoice me. The whole approach is surely tantamount to blackmail and extortion. I was made to feel that if I didn't or couldn't pay my children, wife and I would have been left stranded. Also, these firms seem able to make whatever charge they choose … Are they really a legitimate business or cowboys making an easy picking? Are they registered with anyone or outside the law? What role does the landowner play in all this? … Surely, this is a practice that should be highly discouraged."
I emphatically agree.
I have another letter from a woman whose name I am able to give. Betty Sinclair visited Bradford last year. She says
"Theatre-going in Bradford last year, a woman friend and I parked behind Alhambra on a patch of waste-ground which has always served as parking in the evening. When we went back to the car after the performance we found it clamped, a notice on the windscreen, and a number to ring which I recognised as a post-code for Preston, Lancashire. We rang it. The call was transferred and a couple of minutes later, two rough and threatening characters turned up with an alsation in a clapped-out Cortina estate. They refused to unclamp the car unless we paid £50 on the spot, and told us that if we refused the car would be taken away and it would cost £200 to redeem it. The alsation was released and jumped at us, we were frightened (not a nice place for two unescorted women at that time of night) and my friend, who had a cheque book on her, paid up. If I'd been on my own without my cheque-book and not carrying £50 in cash, I would have had to leave the car. I gave the men an earful, they were aggressive and abusive, and told us what they were doing was providing security for the owners of the waste-land! That same evening they clamped six cars on that little patch and raked in £300 in about half an hour! The name on the leaflet was West Yorkshire Outdoor Security Services.
The following day I rang the police in Bradford, who told me that they were aware of this firm's activities, shared my view that it was highway robbery, and told me to carry a hack-saw in the boot of my car next time! However, they were, in fact, acting within the law."
There are numerous other cases. A woman's car was clamped within two minutes of her leaving it. In another case, the car was clamped while the driver stood by. One heavily pregnant woman was forced to pay £50 late at night, and another was forced to seek a bank till in that self-same seedy area.
West Yorkshire Outdoor Security Services leave notices which say either, "Parking Penalty" or "Parking Fine", or give a warning of prosecution if the wheel clamp is damaged.
A private prosecution took place on 22 December last year, when Irving William Crowther was convicted of causing criminal damage to property under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Mr. Crowther used an angle grinder on the clamp when his car was clamped outside a public house in Queensbury, and he pleaded guilty and was fined £80 plus costs of £35. My entire sympathy is with Mr. Crowther and not with the magistrates, who seemed to endorse the action of that nefarious group of scoundrels called West Yorkshire Outdoor Security Services.
452
While Michael Patrick Sadler, the director of West Yorkshire Outdoor Security Services of Penwell Lawn, Leeds can bring a private prosecution, the police sit on their elbows and do nothing. It is no wonder that there is a crime wave, and people are concerned about the standard of operation of the law.
The other director is Mario de Rome, and the office address is 217 Manningham Lane, BD8, although that is also the address of Falcon Business and Mortgage Services. In a short film on ITN recently, one of the directors was seen interviewing a woman, accusing her of falsely using a disabled person's badge. When she pointed out that her father was blind, that the white stick in the car was his, and that she was anxious to get away and meet him, the response of one of the directors was that her father should be driving the car. So much for the standard of conduct and humanity of these rapacious scoundrels of the enterprise culture.
The Home Office should take action now and recommend that the police take action under the Theft Act 1968. If a car is towed away for the purposes of the person taking the car, it is a crime under that legislation and the police should prosecute.
All efforts to establish the law in the civil courts have failed in England because the companies have repaid the £50, or whatever levy was made, before the case came to court and so no decision has been made.
Breach of the peace is also a crime if threats are used. If they are and they are reported to the police, instead of being indolent, they or the Crown prosecution service should prosecute.
The law was used very adventurously and differently during the miners' strike. If the wheel dampers were picketing miners, they would face all sorts of charges. The police did not sit on their elbows then.
While the Home Office makes recommendations, it could simply ensure that the law in Scotland extended to England and Wales. In Scotland, private clamping is illegal, and I very much fear that the consultation process that the Home Office says that it is embarking on will take months to complete. I hope that it will not take a robbery or murder of a man, or possibly a woman, or the rape of a woman, wandering the streets at night to look for a bank till to pay these people, before the Home Office takes such action. The fear of such a tragedy was expressed in many letters. I read some of them and there are many more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has written with similar stories to the Home Office. He asked me to say that he fully shares my concern. If a tragedy occurs, it will be wrapped firmly round the neck of the Home Office, which seems too indolent and slow to take what should be important and urgent action.
12.13 am
Mr. John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for allowing me to intervene in this debate. I shall be brief because I want the Minister to have time to explain why his Department has been dragging its feet, and hopefully to make a statement about the public consultation that we have been promised for so long.
As my hon. Friend made clear, the issues are fairly stark. On the one hand are the interests of the landowners, some of whom have a genuine problem. Some are trying to deal with a minor inconvenience and some are just plain

453
greedy. In addition, there are the clamping companies. Some of them try to operate with standards of some sort, but many—the majority, I suspect—are just cowboys and pirates. It is quite clear that none of the clampers has any interest in or motive for an attempt to solve the problems that are associated with parking. They are dealing with the symptoms rather than with the problems.
On the other side are the millions of motorists, some of whom, we all admit, park carelessly. But many are just in difficult circumstances—often they do not see the signs—yet they are treated as second-class citizens. It is quite clear that, in that balance, we should be on the side of the motorist. Clamping amounts to harassment. It causes inconvenience and, as was graphically pointed out, possibly danger. In addition, the cost is considerable. It seems that the minimum is £50, and the record—held by Hebden Bridge—is still £240. In the Scottish courts, clamping was aptly described as extortion and theft. One could not find a better description. In Scotland it has been banned since the summer, with no ill effects. As the Minister is aware, the ban has given rise to no particular parking or traffic problems. But the motoring organisations and English Members of Parliament are still receiving complaints about the excesses of clampers in our part of the country.
Having looked at the issue, I have come to the conclusion that a simple ban, as in Scotland, is the most effective means of dealing with it. The Home Office may take a different view. It may believe that we should regulate either clampers or sites. If that is what it believes, it should make the situation clear. The matter should be put out to public consultation at an early date. As was outlined very clearly by my hon. Friend, the Home Office has been dragging its feet for months. This has gone on far too long. Public consultation should be started this month. I hope that the Minister will be able tonight to make an announcement to that effect. The Home Office should ask for speedy replies and should take action before the summer is out. The cowboy clampers have had a free ride for too long. It is time to drive them out of town.
12.17 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I should like, first, to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) made in his concluding comments. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall be issuing our consultation document within a month. The reason for my making that point is that I wish to repudiate the charge that both hon. Gentlemen have put before the House—that we have been dragging our feet in this matter.
It is only right that I should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for securing this important debate and for putting forward, with his usual passion and Yorkshire bluntness—and very properly so—on behalf of his constituents and other Bradford Members, his views about the problems that have been experienced with wheel clamping. I deal with a great deal of correspondence on this subject from hon. Members, members of the public and many organisations. Having read those letters very carefully, I understand the real human fears of individuals arising from some of the actions of so-called clampers. That is why we have been working hard since this matter was last raised in the House to devise a consultation process to deal with these issues.
454
In the previous debate, I said that we would look urgently at the matter. I think I am right in saying that at that time we had not concluded what the way forward was. The hon. Member for Warley, West knows from our conversations that I looked at the matter urgently, and I came quickly to the conclusion that a consultation exercise was the right way forward. The hon. Member for Bradford, South is a man of analysis and care in the preparation of his evidence. I think that when he looks at the consultation document he will see that this is not an easy and straightforward matter.
Not unnaturally, hon. Members are driven by the very real human stories put to them by those affected by so-called cowboy clampers, but in the devising of solutions there is a maze of complexity in dealing with the law, particularly in England and Wales. I hope that in the remaining minutes at my disposal I shall be able to point out that, as a first step, we started to seek counsel's advice. We considered carefully how the law in this area was framed.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the Automobile Association. That organisation is one of many to which we have listened very carefully in the preparation of our consultation document. We have, as all Governments have, the difficult but proper task of balancing the needs and problems of landowners in protecting their land in respect of parking problems and the difficulties caused by so-called cowboy operators. I do not underestimate the problems that many of our citizens have encountered over such operations. In seeking to encapsulate the problem, we have to decide whether we are dealing with "problems associated with wheel clamping on private land" or with "the problem of wheel clamping on private land". Should we impose a blanket ban or seek to develop good practice? Those are some of the issues that we have been considering. Within the month, we shall produce a consultation paper. Sadly, I realised when composing the consultation paper that there is no easy off-the-shelf answer to the problem. The consultation document presents, in a balanced and carefully argued way, a number of possible ways forward. I look forward to the contributions of both hon. Members when they make their views known for the purpose of the exercise.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South talked about cowboy operators. There are some legitimate companies in the industry which try to work to certain standards and make their terms of business clear. They have contacted us because they realise the difficulties that the cowboy element causes to their industry. I say most sincerely that I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, particularly in relation to the vulnerable. He cites the example of a lone woman who may have thought that she had parked her car legitimately, but had actually parked it on private land. She may not have seen the notice, and may be left in a difficult personal position. I take such matters seriously, and they will certainly be to the forefront of my mind when I consider the outcome of the consultation process. The Government agree that we want bad practice to be stamped out.
The Government's first concern was to establish the applicability of the law in this sphere. I repeat the point that I made to the House in the earlier debate: the law on the subject is a maze of possibilities—there are no certainties. It is impossible to say exactly whether an English court would take the view that the activity—or

455
parts of it—were legal under English civil or criminal law. That perhaps explains some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in relation to police prosecution.
Although the courts have heard a number of cases with some application to the general issue, there has not been a test case which could be compared with last year's judgment in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland as an examination of the basic legality of wheel clamping on private land. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are different legal codes north and south of the border, which begs the question of the simplicity of the solution that he offered to the House.
As hon. Members have suggested, there are a number of offences and civil wrongs which might be applicable to wheel clamping, depending on the circumstances. They include criminal damage, interference with a vehicle, taking without consent, theft, blackmail, trespass and conversion. It is impossible to predict what the courts might decide in any given case. The hon. Gentleman—I think in correspondence—has accused me of
"condoning criminal activity through inertia".
There was a flavour of that in what he was saying this evening. I repudiate that claim because, if there were a clear criminal activity involved, the police and the courts would be able to ensure that the offending parties were appropriately dealt with. But the position is not so clear cut.
I mentioned that we had sought counsel's advice on the matter because of the lack of clarity. That advice will form part of our consultation document and it shed some light on the problem. I shall not go into all the detail now as it will be included in the consultation paper, but I shall say something which I hope will be helpful to those hon. Members who have participated in the debate.
It appears that legal action against landowners and wheel clampers is more likely to succeed if the consequences for a motorist of parking on a piece of land are not advertised clearly, and the landowner and wheel clamper act unreasonably in the manner of their operation or in relation to the fees demanded for the release of vehicles. That guidance goes to the heart of many of the cases eloquently described by the hon. Gentleman. Although there is no certainty and each case will be decided on its facts, I suggest that some of the more extreme practices of wheel clampers may well be found to be unlawful under present civil and criminal law. It may be
456
worth reminding the House that where wheel clamping leads to assaults, intimidation, or a breach of the peace—what might be termed mischiefs on the margin—the law already offers protection.
However, it is also apparent that the present law may not always deal easily or sufficiently rapidly with such abuses as the late night clamping of cars owned by vulnerable motorists.
I have been challenged about what we have been doing about all this. I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the complexity of this issue. It has genuinely taken time to gather legal opinion, without which we could not have framed a consultation document which tried to deal with this problem in a way that offered real solutions. That has been our intention throughout.
We have also had to weigh up the interests of land owners. For some of them, wheel clamping may have been an option that has worked to protect their interests. Chaining off land may not be an option, but they need to think about their responsibilities if the clamping operations that they have employed have gone wrong or caused danger or distress. We have to remember their interests in the matter too.
Equally, we must remember the problems faced by motorists, who should not be unreasonably deprived of the use of their vehicles. Matters of public safety will have to be taken into consideration, too. The consultation document will cover banning the practice, alternatives to clamping, self-regulation of the industry, statutory regulation, and the penalties which might be used. Will controls lead to an outbreak of towing away or blocking? Would solving one problem lead to the creation of another? All this will be included in the paper. I think that within a month hon. Members will have an opportunity to take the matter forward.
Mr. Cryer: How long will the consultation period be? My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and I are anxious that the process should be reasonable but as brief as possible, so that action may be got under way.
Mr. Jack: The total period involved will be four months. I hope that hon. Members will make their contribution to the process, and I look forward to hearing what they will have to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Accommodation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the schools in Northern Ireland which have located Portacabin-type accommodation units on their sites, showing in each case the number of such units in use and the number of years that have elapsed since the first such unit was placed on site.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are over 1,300 schools in Northern Ireland and information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the latest estimate of schools with temporary classroom units on site is as follows:

  Number of schools

  Number of temporary classroom units

  550

  1—5

  80

  6—10

  45

  11—15

  25

  over 15

  Care in the Community Fund
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland how much money will be made available through the care in the community fund.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total amount of funds to be transferred from social security to the community care budget held and managed by health and social services boards will be £24·63 million in 1993–94, rising to £65·28 million in 1994–95 and to £100·33 million in 1995–96. A further sum of £4·822 million, over and above the transfer sum, will be made available to health and social services boards in 1993–94 to help operate the new arrangements.

  Independent Living Fund
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have received payments from the independent living fund for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  I understand that the information requested can be provided only in terms of the average numbers—based on quarterly counts—who received payments, and is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  748

  1991

  1,217

  1992

  1,929

  180
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money in total was paid out to people in Northern Ireland under the independent living fund.

  Mr. Hanley
  I understand that the amount paid up to December 1992 was £10·787 million.

DEFENCE

  AWE Aldermaston
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order an independent safety investigation into the Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have no plans to order an independent safety investigation at the Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment, which is already subject to independent inspection under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Safety is, and will remain, of paramount importance at the establishment.

  Southern Lebanon (Helicopter Deployment)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charge will be raised from the Foreign Office by his Department for the deployment of three RAF Wessex helicopters from Cyprus on 23 January to southern Lebanon.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Final figures are still being collected in Cyprus, but it is anticipated that the charge, based on extra cost, will amount to some £20,000.

  Health and Safety
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy relating to the release of official information on health and safety issues at(a) the atomic weapons establishment and (b) the Defence Research Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is my Department's policy to make available all information required in order to comply with health and safety legislation at the atomic weapons establishment and the Defence Research Agency.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to changing his policy relating to the release of official information on health and safety issues at(a) the atomic weapons establishment and (b) the Defence Research Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have no plans to change our policy.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received relating to the release of information concerning health and safety issues at Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on this subject.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current health and safety arrangements at Aldermaston.
  181
  Mr. Aitken
  The current health and safety arrangements at Aldermaston are designed to ensure that the well-being of the work force, and the safety of the site and the surrounding environment are and will continue to be of paramount importance.

  RAF Ground Training
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 1992,Official Report, columns 536–537, if a decision has now been taken on the proposal to rationalise Royal Air Force ground training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has consulted thoroughly with the trade unions on the proposal to concentrate training at RAF Cosford, RAF Halton and, subject to further review, RAF Locking. No issues have been raised which call into doubt the viability of the proposal and I have therefore decided that it should be implemented as I set out on 6 November.

  Every effort will be made to find alternative employment for the staff affected by these organisational changes and action will be taken to assist those involved in relocation. The personal preferences of staff will be carefully and sympathetically considered and all possible measures will be taken to minimise civilian redundancies. Where redundancies do occur, all staff will be entitled to the appropriate periods of notice or pay in lieu and to compensation in accordance with the relevant pension scheme. The MOD redundancy and outplacement service and the relocation scheme will be available for staff wishing to make use of these services.

  Attack Helicopter
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the procurement of an attack helicopter for the British Army.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have previously advised the House of our intention to order a complete attack helicopter

  Q12

  Percentage of winds above specified wind speed

  Wind speed

  Year

  5 knots

  10 knots

  15 knots

  20 knots

  25 knots

  30 knots

  35 knots

  40 knots

  1987

  88·9

  57·1

  27·4

  9·0

  2·3

  0·7

  0·1

  0·0

  1988

  90·4

  61·7

  32·1

  12·8

  3·9

  1·0

  0·3

  0·0

  1989

  90·5

  59·1

  32·2

  12·8

  4·1

  1·0

  0·2

  0·1

  1990

  92·5

  63·9

  36·3

  14·6

  5·2

  1·6

  0·4

  0·1

  1991

  90·5

  58·7

  29·9

  12·7

  4·8

  1·3

  0·3

  0·0

  1992

  89·4

  59·9

  32·0

  12·1

  3·4

  0·8

  0·2

  0·0

  1

  Q13

  Percentage of winds in each 30 degree sector

  Wind direction

  Year

  North

  030

  060

  East

  120

  150

  South

  210

  240

  West

  300

  330

  1987

  10·2

  7·0

  5·5

  7·9

  10·2

  8·6

  6·0

  10·7

  11·5

  7·9

  5·7

  7·9

  1988

  10·1

  8·0

  3·2

  4·6

  6·6

  7·7

  6·3

  11·4

  15·1

  12·4

  7·8

  6·9

  1989

  9·3

  10·8

  4·2

  5·5

  7·1

  6·0

  5·7

  14·1

  13·8

  9·0

  7·4

  7·0

  1990

  7·2

  8·8

  4·1

  3·6

  6·1

  6·4

  6·5

  14·2

  16·2

  11·5

  9·2

  6·3

  1991

  9·0

  9·7

  5·0

  6·4

  10·6

  7·3

  5·9

  12·1

  14·6

  8·1

  5·6

  5·7

  1992

  9·8

  9·4

  3·3

  4·6

  5·5

  5·7

  7·4

  16·5

  15·9

  10·1

  6·5

  5·5

  Q14 Information is available giving percentages for winds exceeding the same thresholds as in Q12, but for each wind direction separately. These are considered too bulky for publication but are being sent to you directly.
  182
  weapons system to replace the Lynx in the anti-armour role; and to procure the aircraft, together with an associated support package "off the shelf" through a prime contractor, following competition. I am pleased to announce that the invitation to tender, which will initiate this competition, is being issued to potential bidders today.

  St. Anne's Head and RAF Brawdy (Winds)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the annual percentage of winds of at least(a) 5 knots, (b) 10 knots, (c) 15 knots, (d) 20 knots, (e) 25 knots, (f) 30 knots, (g) 35 knots and (h) 40 knots recorded at St. Anne's head and RAF Brawdy during each of the last six years;

  (2) what was the annual percentage of winds coming from each point of the compass recorded at St. Anne's head and RAF Brawdy during each of the last six years;

  (3) what was the annual percentage of winds coming from each point of the compass at speeds of at least (a) 5 knots, (b) 10 knots, (c) 15 knots, (d) 20 knots, (e) 25 knots, (f) 30 knots, (g) 35 knots and (h) 40 knots recorded at St. Anne's head and RAF Brawdy during each of the last six years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These matters are delegated to the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 2 February 1993.
  I am responding to your three written Parliamentary Questions concerning the wind at St. Anne's Head and RAF Brawdy for each of the last six years.
  The figures that follow all refer to RAF Brawdy as information from St. Anne's Head is not available for the period requested. Wind directions are given in 30 degree sectors, e.g. 'east' will be for winds from directions between 075° and 105°. Wind speeds are in knots. The information is based on hourly mean winds (i.e. winds averaged over an hour).

  Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission independent financial advisers to carry out costings comparisons of the bids of Rosyth and Devonport dockyard managements with respect to the future maintenance requirements of Trident submarines.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's work on future refitting arrangements, including assessments of the various proposals put forward by the dockyard contractors, has, for some considerable time, been informed by the use of independent consultants. They will continue to advise on all appropriate aspects of proposals under consideration.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Finance and Services Committee
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements will be made in respect of answering hon. Members' questions relating to the work of the Finance and Services Committee.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  I intend to amend the question rota shortly to take account of the establishment of the Finance and Services Committee. After consultation with the House of Commons Commission, I have agreed that oral questions to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee should be included in the same "slot" as questions to the Member answering for the House of Commons Commission. The Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), will respond in particular to"questions concerning the estimates for House of Commons expenditure (which will be prepared under his Committee's supervision), the financial performance of Departments of the House, and the financial implications of any new or expanded services which may be proposed by the committees appointed under Standing Order No. 125 (Domestic Committees)" (Official Report, 11 February 1992 column 452).

  The oral questions to the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee will be printed in one combined order created by the random selection process. They will be taken every sixth Monday, at 3.15 pm. In order to reflect the changes in direct responsibility for House services, ten minutes will be allocated to the new combined slot, and questions to the Lord President of the Council will follow at 3.25 pm.

  In addition, questions for written answers may also be tabled to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee concerning the exercise of the responsibilities of the Committee.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what VAT treatment has been agreed between the British Bankers Association and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise with regard to the VAT treatment of supplies of non-executive directors' services made by investing institutions to investee companies.

  Sir John Cope
  There has been no specific agreement concerning non-executive directors' fees. These fall to be treated in the same way as management fees which are 184
  included in the list of guidelines agreed between Customs and the British Bankers Association. Where a director is appointed to the board of the United Kingdom investee company as a condition of a loan, any charges for the director's services are part of the consideration for the loan, an exempt supply. Alternatively, where the investor acquires shares and exercises the right to appoint a director, Customs take the view that there is no supply for VAT purposes, as any shares are supplied to the investing institution by the investee company. In either case, any associated VAT incurred by the investing institution would not be recoverable.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the net revenues raised by the increase in VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. in June 1979 in the first full year thereafter, in cash and current prices.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: As shown on page 31 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1979–80 £430 million was expected to be raised from unifying the rates of VAT at 15 per cent. in 1980–81.

  Bank Fees
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what VAT liability is applied to arrangement fees charged by a bank to its customers in connection with a debt for equity exchange by that bank.

  Sir John Cope
  The VAT liability of arrangement fees charged by banks depends strictly on the terms of the contracts between the parties. Without further details, it is difficult to be precise about the liability. Arrangement fees charged by the banks in respect of loans or other forms of credit form part of the consideration for the loan, an exempt supply. Moreover, where a borrower issues shares in return for loan capital, any arrangement fee would also be exempt from VAT. In either case, any associated VAT incurred by the bank would not be recoverable.

  Charities
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of VAT receipts to Her Majesty's Treasury from charities in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on 28 January 1993 at column 791.

  Commuters (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate such information as he has available about tax relief for people commuting to and from work by rail, for OECD countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No OECD country allows tax relief specifically for rail travel to and from work. But the following countries allow various levels of tax relief for journeys to and from work by public transport:

  Germany

  Netherlands

  The following countries allow various levels of tax relief for home-to-work travel by any type of transport:

  Austria

  Belgium

  185

  Denmark

  France

  Japan

  Luxembourg

  Norway

  Sweden

  Remaining OECD countries either do not allow any tax relief for travel to and from work, or the information is not available.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Securities and Investments Board concerning the future of LAUTRO and FIMBRA and their proposed successor bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Recognition of a self-regulatory organisation is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board. It would be inappropriate for the Treasury to be involved in drawing up detailed plans for the Personal Investment Authority. Nevertheless, I welcome the progress made so far and see imporant advantages for investor protection if the PIA were established to regulate private investor business with the support of firms who do business in that sector.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek to reform the Financial Services Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend has asked the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to review how SIB carries out its regulatory responsibilities.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage change in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms of his Department's budget from 1992–93 to 1993–94.

  Sir John Cope
  The Treasury's budget includes expenditure on certain Bank of England services, United Kingdom coinage, Parliament and Privy Council in addition to the running costs of the central Treasury. The percentage change between 1992–93 and 1993–94 based on the latest 1992–93 forecast outturn is:

  (a) —4·1 per cent. in real terms; and

  (b) —1·4 per cent. in cash terms.

  Tax (1981 Budget)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the net revenues raised by the tax changes introduced in the 1981 Budget in the first full year thereafter, in cash and current prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: An estimate of revenues in cash terms is contained in table 2 of the 1981–82 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". An estimate in current prices can be obtained using the series for the GDP deflator published in the 1993 "Economic Trends" annual supplement. Both are available in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Seat Belts
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to ensure co-ordination between the Home Department and the Department of Transport regarding the campaign on the wearing of seat belts scheduled for February.

  The Prime Minister
  The campaign is a matter for the Department of Transport. It has consulted the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, who support the campaign.

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate ministerial consideration of a centrally funded approach for needle exchange schemes to work towards the elimination of illegal needle and syringe disposal.

  The Prime Minister
  There are about 300 needle exchange schemes. In 1988, general guidance on such schemes was issued to health authorities including advice on the disposal of used equipment.

  The Department of Health issued further guidance when it made £1.4 million central funding available to health authorities in 1992–93 to expand the number of such schemes based in pharmacies. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, managers of such schemes must take all resonable steps to ensure that the waste is handled and disposed of safely and legally.

  India
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Indian Prime Minister on the status of Kashmir and the human rights of Kashmiri people during his recent visit to India.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the situation in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister. I restated our view that the best way forward is through dialogue between India and Pakistan; improvement in human rights and a genuine political process in Kashmir; and an end to all external support for violence in Kashmir. Mr. Narasimha Rao assured me of his determination to hold elections in Kashmir as soon as possible and of his commitment to respect for human rights.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the full terms of the agreement reached with the Indian Government during his visit on the importation of Scotch whisky.

  The Prime Minister
  During my visit to India, I took the opportunity to urge the Government of India to accelerate the liberalisation of its import regulations, which would include such products as Scotch whisky. We are continuing to press for an early resolution of this matter.

  Secretaries of State (Powers)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland have equal delegation of powers.
  187
  The Prime Minister
  The powers of the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland reflect the different constitutional positions of Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the principal responsibilities of(a) the Secretary of State for Wales, (b) the Secretary of State for Scotland and (c) the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the principal differences of those responsibilities; and what changes he is planning to make to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  The principal responsibilities of the Secretaries of State are set out in the list of ministerial responsibilities, a copy of which is in the Library. A review of a wide range of aspects of governance of Scotland, including the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland, is under way. The Government will make an announcement to the House about the results of the review once it is complete.

  Cabinet Office Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the percentage change in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms of the Cabinet Office budget from 1992–93 to 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  The percentage reduction in spending plans for the Cabinet Office, excluding the Office of Public Service and Science, between 1992–93 and 1993–94 is expected to be(a) 23·9 per cent. in real terms, and (b) 21·8 per cent. in cash terms. The reduction is due mainly to the fact that capital expenditure is expected to be less in 1993–94 than in 1992–93.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will bring forward proposals for procedures for the House to scrutinise the way in which its decisions on proposed European Community directives and regulations are reflected in voting in the Council of Ministers when the proceedings of the Council become public; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements are being made within the European Community for the implementation of the decision by the Edinburgh conference that votes cast in the Council of Ministers will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As agreed at Edinburgh, the Council secretariat will make arrangements to publish the record of the vote, including explanations of the vote where delegations request these, whenever a formal vote is taken in Council. This information will be provided to the House.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister which members of the royal family have carried out engagements overseas on behalf of the Government in each year since 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The information is as follows:

  1989

  The Queen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  188

  The Prince and Princess of Wales

  The Queen Mother

  The Duke and Duchess of York

  The Prince Edward

  The Princess Royal

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  Princess Alexandra

  1990

  The Queen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Prince and Princess of Wales

  The Princess Royal

  The Princess Margaret

  The Duke of Gloucester

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  Princess Alexandra

  1991

  The Queen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Prince and Princess of Wales

  The Prince Edward

  The Princess Royal

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  Princess Alexandra

  1992

  The Queen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Prince and Princess of Wales

  The Prince Edward

  The Princess Royal

  The Princess Margaret

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  Princess Alexandra

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions overseas visits have been made by members of the royal family in each year since 1989 at the request of Government Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The number of overseas visits made by members of the royal family at the request of Government Departments, including the British Overseas Trade Board, in the years concerned was as follows:

  Number

  1989

  41

  1990

  28

  1991

  35

  1992

  41

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have requested members of the royal family to carry out engagements on behalf of the Government in each year since 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought by the Crown prosecution service arising out of investigations by the
  189
  Metropolitan police in each inner and outer London magistrates court in the latest month for which the information is available; what was the number for the same month one year ago; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change.

  The Attorney-General
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures are held for whole Crown prosecution service areas rather than for individual magistrates courts.

  The Crown prosecution service does record the number of cases received in each area, which includes cases received for advice. The year ending figures for the periods indicated are as follows:

  September 1991

  September 1992

  Percentage change

  Inner London

  148,117

  146,555

  -1·05

  London North

  80,663

  79,881

  -0·97

  London South and Surrey

  63,113

  60,373

  -4·34

  Total CPS

  1,603,002

  1,569,996

  -2·06

  The figures include cases received from police forces other than the Metropolitan police, for example, British Transport police, and in respect of London south and Surrey, the Surrey police. No concluded assessment of the reasons for the change have yet been made.

HEALTH

  Drugs
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will give, by specialism, the membership of the committee considering the list of drugs purchasable over the counter;

  (2) if a dermatologist will be invited to give evidence on the application of dermatological drugs to be considered by the committee on drugs purchasable over the counter; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The membership of the Committee on Safety of Medicines is given in the table. In accordance with the requirements of the Medicines Act 1968, we seek and take account of the Committee on Safety of Medicines' advice before deciding whether it is safe for a prescription-only medicine to be reclassified so that it may be supplied over the counter. If a dermatological medicine currently restricted to supply on prescription only were to be proposed for reclassification to allow it to be supplied over the counter, the Committee on Safety of Medicines' advice would be sought. It would be open to the Committee to obtain any additional specialist advice it considered necessary.

  Drugs

    Committee on safety of medicines (CSM)
    Professor M. D. Rawlins BSc MD FRCP(Lon) FRCP(Ed) FFPM (Chairman)
    Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Newcastle University
    Professor A. M. Breckenridge MD MSc FRCP FRCPE FRSE
    Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Liverpool University
    Dr. Kathleen L. Costeloe MA MB BChir FRCP
    Consultant Paediatrician, St. Bartholomew's Medical College
    Dr. Janet H. Darbyshire MSc (Epidemiol) MBChB FRCP
    Head of the MRC's HIV Clinical Trials Centre, Brompton
    190
    Hospital, Hon. Consultant in Thoracic Medicine and Hon. Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology, Brompton Hospital
    Professor D. S. Davies BSc PhD CChem FRSC
    Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London
    Professor Anne Ferguson BSc MB ChB PhD FRCPath FRCP(Glas) FRCP(Lon) FRCP(Ed)
    Professor of Gastroenterology, University of Edinburgh and Western General Hospital
    Professor A. T. Florence DSc FRSC FRSE FRPharmS Dean of the School of Pharmacy, London University
    Professor A. M. Geddes MB ChB(Ed) FRCP(Lon) FRCP(Ed)
    Head of Department of Infection, University of Birmingham Medical School and Consultant Physician, East Birmingham Hospital
    Professor E. C. Gordon-Smith FRCP FRCPath
    Professor of Haematology, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London
    Professor K. Gull BSc PhD
    Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Manchester
    Professor H. S. Jacobs BA MD FRCP
    Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, The University College and Middlesex Hospital School of Medicine, London
    Dr. W. A. Jerrett MB BCh FRCGP
    General Practitioner, Glamorgan
    Dr. B. J. Kirby MB ChB FRCP
    Consultant Physician, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital
    Miss Gillian C. I. Lachelin MD MA MB BChir FRCOG Reader and Hon. Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, University College Hospital Medical School, London
    Professor M. J. S. Langman BSc MD FRCP
    Professor of Medicine and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Birmingham University
    Professor D. H. Lawson MD FRCP(Ed) FRCP(Glas)
    Consultant Physician, Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Visiting Professor Strathclyde University
    Dr. A. V. P. MacKay MA BSc(Pharm) MB ChB PhD(Cantab) FRCPsych FRCP(Edin)
    Physician Superintendent and Consultant Psychiatrist, Argyll and Bute Hospital
    Professor J. M. Midgley BSc MSc PhD CChem FRSC FRPharmS
    Professor of Medical and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Strathclyde
    Professor B. K. Park BSc PhD
    Professor of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool
    Professor J. C. Petrie MB ChB FRCP(Ed) FRCP FFPM Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Aberdeen
    Professor Alain Li Wan Po BPharm BA PhD MRPharmS MPS(N.I.) MRSC
    Head of School of Pharmacy, and Professor of Pharmaceutics, Queen's University, Belfast
    Professor Anne E. Tattersfield MD FRCP
    Professor of Respiratory Medicine, University of Nottingham

  Drugs (Product Licences)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has received from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry regarding product licence information supplied to the Medicines Control Agency being made available for use by other sections of her Department including the section responsible for the management of the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Product licence information supplied to the Medicines Control Agency is not available for use by other sections of the Department. Officials have received a letter from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry on this matter and will be replying shortly.

  Hospital Beds, West Midlands
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 689, on the west midlands, what information she has on the number of hospital beds at the dates given.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table. The number of beds, however, is not a good indicator of patient activity over the period in question as my earlier reply indicated. As in my earlier reply to the hon. Member, figures for 1991–92 are provisional. Validated figures will be published shortly.

  Total available beds in West Midlands RHA

  1979

  1990–91

  11991–92

  West Midlands

  36,263

  26,591

  24,774

  1 Provisional.

  National Health Service Management Executive Table of pamphlets, leaflets and brochures issued to managers and staff in the national health service in the 12 months to 21 January 1993 Key: P=Print, D=Design, A=Artwork, Del=Delilery charges, T=Typesetting, Dist=Distribution and Mailings, F=Fulfilment, HLOS=Health literature ordering service

  Project/Project description

  Category

  Cost (£)

  Sent to

  C50/018 Purchasing for patients issue 6 (DCED)

  P

  1,076·00

  —

  C50/027 Sharing developments issue 3 (DCED)

  A, T, P

  4,906·80

  —

  C50/029 GP Computer survey booklet (NHSIS)

  D, A, T, P

  7,930·00

  —

  C50/034 Purchasing for patients issue 7 (DCED)

  P

  966·00

  —

  C50/042 Sharing developments issue 4 (DCED)

  D,A, P

  5,214·65

  All sent to NHS managers

  C50/042 Sharing developments issue 4 (DCED)

  P

  1,034·00

  All sent to NHS managers

  C50/048 IMG News issue 7 (NHSISA1)

  P

  1,762·06

  All sent to NHS managers

  C50/051 Purchasing, Teaching and research booklet (DCED)

  P

  2,179·00

  All sent to NHS managers

  C50/052 NHS Reg. of Comp. Apps. Info. guide (NHSISA1)

  D, A

  1,727·25

  —

  C50/052 NHS Reg. of Comp. Apps. Info. guide (NHSISA1)

  P

  2,798·00

  —

  C50/057 Purchasing intelligence brochures (DCED)

  P

  2,179·00

  —

  C50/068 'This is the IMG' advert leaflets (NHSISA1)

  P

  566·00

  —

  C50/069 IMG News issue 8 (NHSISA1)

  P

  2,389·40

  —

  C50/070 Purchasing for patients issue 8 (DCED)

  P

  1,098·00

  —

  C50/073 (EOR) Outpatients computer prog. booklet

  P

  9,470·00

  —

  C50/074 EOR booklet (EOR)

  A, P

  996·00

  —

  C50/076 Clinical audit leaflet (NUR)

  D, A, T

  507·60

  —

  C50/076 Clinical audit leaflet (NUR)

  P

  593·38

  —

  C50/083 Working for patients leaflet (NHSRIU)

  A, T, P

  1,149·15

  —

  C50/085 Purchasing for patients issue 9 (DCED)

  P

  1,045·00

  —

  C50/088 Local voices publication (PMB3B)

  P

  2,827·00

  —

  C50/092 Total quality management project

  P

  2,500·00

  —

  C50/093 IMG News issue 9 (NHSISIA1)

  P

  2,178·93

  —

  C50/100 Purchasing for patients issue 10 (DCED)

  P

  1,113·00

  —

  C74/007 Demonsrtrably different IT (CEM-ME4)

  P

  8,000·00

  —

  Dentistry
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been de-registered on the initiative of dentists in Norfolk in the past 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally for the period required. Between 3 July 1992 and 22 January 1993 dentists informed Norfolk family health service association of the deregistration of 14,637 adults and 57 children.

  During the 12 months 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1992, 111,390 adults and 53,347 children left the register of national health service dental patients in Norfolk and 177,356 adults and 58,457 children were added. At 1 December 1991, 413,797 patients were registered with dentists in Norfolk. At 30 November 1992, 484,878 patients were registered—a net increase of over 71,000.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most recent figures available for the total annual cost to her Department of road-related accidents.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Pamphlets
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pamphlets the national health service management executive has published in the last year; if she will list the title, the recipients and the cost of each pamphlet; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: In the 12 months to 21 January 1993 the national health service management executive prepared and issued 57 pamphlets, leaflets and brochures to managers and staff in the NHS. The table gives the project number, description, cost and to whom it was sent.
  193

  Project/Project description

  Category

  Cost (£)

  Sent to

  C50/104 Alliances for health booklet (DCED)

  P

  4,885·00

  —

  C50/105 Clinical coding booklet (IMG)

  P

  495·00

  —

  C50/108 HC92 MFG booklets (Wessex RHA)

  P

  6,838·00

  —

  C50/110 Rec. Broch. for Leeds admin. Staff (PRIME 1)

  P

  15,900·00

  —

  C50/I13 IMG News issue 10 (NHSISA1)

  P

  2,627·00

  —

  C50/120 Local voices brochure reprint (PMD3B)

  P

  987·00

  —

  C50/121 IMG Aim booklet (NHSIS)

  A, P

  1,695·00

  —

  C70/006 Health service research strategy booklet

  A, D, T

  7,584·63

  —

  C70/006 Health service research strategy booklet

  D

  3,525·00

  —

  C70/006 Health service research strategy booklet

  P

  8,700·90

  —

  C71/001 Hermes publicity leaflet

  D, A, P

  2,231·00

  —

  C71/003 Nursing perspective leaflet issue 1

  A, P

  504·00

  —

  C71/004 Nursing perspective leaflet issue 2

  A, T, P

  1,046·00

  —

  C71/005 C71/RM update issue 3

  A, P

  1,876·00

  —

  C71/013 Risk assessment and RM brochure and leaflet

  P

  5,480·00

  —

  C71/014 Nursing perspective leaflets 1 and 2 reprints

  P

  1,476·00

  —

  C71/017 Ernst and Young RM booklet

  P

  2,805·00

  —

  C71/023 Business planning for medical records booklet

  P

  2,996·00

  —

  C71/024 Mental health systems survey booklet

  P

  3,296·00

  —

  C71/025 RM in the community health services booklet

  P

  2,995·00

  —

  C71/026 Casemix management systems survey booklet

  A, P

  4,067·00

  —

  C73/009 VFM Update March 1992

  D, A, T, P

  2,440·00

  —

  C74/007 Demonstrably different II brochures

  A

  325·48

  —

  C74/007 Demonstrably different II brochures

  D, A, T

  41,891·11

  —

  C74/007 Demonstrably different II brochures

  D

  587·00

  —

  C74/007 Demonstrably different II brochures

  P

  11,695·00

  —

  C74/008 Ref: The First Six months booklet

  P

  24,830·00

  Managers and women

  C74/009 Women in the NHS—Opportunity 2000 leaflet

  D, A

  2,106·78

  —

  C74/009 Women in the NHS—Opportunity 2000 leaflet

  P

  8,007·35

  —

  C74/010 Ambulance and other patient trans serv pub

  P

  4,247·00

  NHS managers and women

  C74/011 NHS Trust finance manual

  D, A, T

  4,512·00

  —

  C74/018 Women in the NHS booklet

  A, T, P

  8,871·25

  —

  C74/019 NHS women's implementation guide

  P

  5,857·82

  —

  C76/004 RMU design consultancy/catalogue printing

  D

  32,579·81

  —

  C76/004 RMU design consultancy/catalogue printing

  Del.

  40·28

  NHS managers

  C76/004 RMU design consultancy/catalogue printing

  P

  18,361·83

  —

  D70/007 NHSME annual report and broadsheet

  —

  97,208·88

  —

  D71/014 Purchasing for the charter booklet

  —

  2,338·25

  —

  D72/003 Total quality management projects pub.

  —

  20,000·00

  —

  D72/013 Report on 6 maternity units

  —

  9,642·60

  —

  D73/001 NHS women's implementation guide

  —

  15,005·95

  Women and managers

  D73/001 Women's employees guide to opportunity 2000

  —

  60,632·41

  Over 500,000 women and to NHS managers

  D73/016 Celebration of success book

  —

  31,938·36

  Senior NHS managers

  D73/016 Reprint of opportunity 2000 booklet

  —

  6,932·50

  NHS managers

  D74/001 VFM update 7

  —

  3,055·00

  NHS managers

  D74/003 Ward materials management

  —

  711·00

  NHS managers

  D74/005 VFM summary report nursing skill mix

  —

  759·50

  NHS managers

  D76/001 Disp management summary booklet

  —

  8,769·88

  NHS managers

  D80/OI4 First steps for the NHS (Focus Book)

  —

  45,000·00

  NHS managers

  D89/003 NHS reg. of comp. Applications (IMG)

  —

  1,924·00

  NHS managers

  D89/004 Queue action reprint (CMME4)

  —

  2,235·00

  —

  DX89/006 Grad. Rec. NHS finance function (FCIB4B)

  —

  6,616·76

  Personnel and finance

  D89/009 Secondments Oxford seminar (91/92) (Prime 2)

  —

  1,900·22

  NHS managers

  D89/015 Ambulance and other pat. trans. booklet (HPU)

  —

  1,542·00

  NHS managers

  D89/018 IMG News issue 11 (IMG)

  —

  2,339·13

  NHS managers

  D89/021 Total quality management (CMME4)

  —

  22,815·00

  NHS managers

  D89/035 Purchasing for health newsletter

  —

  28·78

  NHS managers

  D89/037 IMG News issue 12 (IMG)

  —

  2,578·40

  NHS managers

  D89/041 Data interchange standards booklet (IMG)

  —

  1,775·00

  NHS managers

  D89/042 Local voices SR (PMD3B)

  —

  1,022·00

  NHS managers

  D89/053 IMG News issue 13 (IMG)

  —

  1,967·98

  NHS managers

  D89/054 Health service indicators leaflet (FCIB8)

  —

  1,408·83

  NHS managers

  D89/056 Data quality review (IMG ME (C))

  —

  2,518·56

  NHS managers

  D89/058 this is the IMG reprint (IMG)

  —

  1,938·00

  NHS managers

  D89/066 Data quality review No. 2 (CCSU)

  —

  1,300·00

  NHS managers

  D23/017 "This is the IMG ME" booklet

  —

  1,938·00

  NHS managers

  D90/002 ME News Feb 92 (TRANS 91/92)

  —

  7,375·90

  —

  D90/003 ME News March 92 (TRANS 91/92)

  —

  6,022·59

  —

  D90/004 ME News April 92

  —

  7,463·48

  —

  D90/005 ME News May 92

  —

  8,984·19

  —

  D90/006 ME News June 92

  —

  8,463·69

  —

  D90/008 ME News July 92

  —

  10,585·87

  —

  D90/009 ME News August 92

  —

  9,500·00

  —

  D90/010 ME News September 92

  —

  8,933·46

  —

  D90/011 HOTN News inserts

  —

  998·75

  —

  D90/012 ME News October 92

  —

  11,000·00

  —

  D90/013 ME News November 92

  —

  11,000·00

  —

  194 195

  Project/Project description

  Catagory

  Cost (£)

  Sent to

  D90/014 ME News December 92

  —

  12,000·00

  —

  D90/015 ME News January 93

  —

  12,000·00

  —

  C33/010 "This is the IMG" booklet reprint

  P

  8,067·00

  NHS managers

  C33/016 IMG literature translations and print

  P

  3,485·00

  —

  C90/016 January 1992

  P, Dist, Photos

  7,861·19

  Throughout the NHS

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Restructuring)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with(a) the Association of County Councils, (b) the Association of Chief Police Officers, (c) the Police Federation and (d) others with regard to proposals to restructure the police force and police authorities in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no discussions relating to police organisation in Nottinghamshire. He is considering a range of issues relating to the future structure, organisation and funding of the police service generally.

  My right hon. and learned Friend does not yet have firm proposals for change, but when he does, he will consult interested parties before final decisions are reached.

  Fire Services, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the capacity of fire authorities in Nottinghamshire to cope with fire, emergency and other demands in 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The standard of service provided by the Nottinghamshire fire and rescue service was last examined in the course of an inspection of the service by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services between 19 and 23 October 1992. I expect the report of that inspection to be published shortly. It is for Nottinghamshire county council, in the light of its standard spending assessment, to set a budget for 1993–94 which will allow it to comply with its duties under the Fire Services Act 1947 as a fire authority, and with the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders in the east midlands and in England and Wales were under 21 years of age in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 January 1993, at column 252.

  Car Crime
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce car crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the question from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 16 December 1992 at column 208.

  Vehicle Entry Devices
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to curb the use and sale of vehicle entry devices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans at present to ban or control the sale of vehicle entry devices.

  It should be stressed, however, that it is already a criminal offence, under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968, to carry equipment for use in connection with any burglary or theft. This covers vehicle entry devices, and upon conviction an offender is liable to imprisonment for up to three years.

  Many people, such as locksmiths and garage owners, have a legitimate need for equipment such as skeleton keys, and this would make it extremely difficult to prohibit their sale. These devices are also often no more effective in gaining entry to locked vehicles than other more rudimentary tools, like screwdrivers or shaped pieces of metal, and often require some skill on the part of the user to work effectively.

  Moreover, inquiries by the Home Office crime prevention centre and the Association of Chief Police Officers have not found any evidence of the widespread misuse of skeleton car keys. In particular, the Association of Chief Police Officers has reported that these devices have not been found in the possession of offenders charged with either theft of or from a vehicle.

  We do not, therefore, see a need at present for legislation to control the possession, sale or advertising of skeleton car keys, but we shall continue to monitor the situation closely.

  We are aware, however, that devices which are capable of deactivating electronic car alarms and central locking systems have recently appeared on the British market. We are actively looking into their availability and effectiveness, with a view to assessing what action may be required. Manufacturers too are aware of the existence of these devices and are working to improve the security of their products accordingly.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the percentage clear-up rate for each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991 calculated solely on the basis of those charged and found guilty.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available.

  Guilty Pleas
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991(a) the number of those people who appeared in court who entered an initial plea of guilty and (b) the percentage of all those who appeared in court which the figure in (a) represents.
  197
  Mr. Jack
  The readily available information which is collected in selected sample weeks in February, June and October of each year for proceedings for indictable offences, including either-way, at magistrates courts, is given in the table.

  Information for 1985 and earlier years is not available. Information on the type of plea for committals for trial dealt with by the Crown court by circuit, is published annually in the command paper "Judicial statistics, England and Wales". Table 6.7 of the 1991 issue (Cm 1990) gives data for 1990. Information for police force areas is not available.

  Table A

  Defendants pleading guilty at a summary trial as a percentage of all those proceeded1 against at magistrates' courts for indictable offences by police force area, 1986 and 1991

  Police force area

  1986

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  60

  44

  Bedfordshire

  58

  57

  Cambridgeshire

  75

  46

  Cheshire

  66

  52

  Cleveland

  71

  50

  Cumbria

  69

  64

  Derbyshire

  63

  50

  Devon and Cornwall

  64

  62

  Dorset

  274

  52

  Durham

  59

  45

  Essex

  64

  54

  Gloucestershire

  72

  59

  Greater Manchester

  62

  51

  Hampshire

  68

  53

  Hertfordshire

  63

  56

  Humberside

  69

  59

  Kent

  66

  47

  Lancashire

  65

  46

  Leicestershire

  71

  53

  Lincolnshire

  63

  53

  London, City of

  260

  248

  Merseyside

  50

  48

  Metropolitan Police District

  55

  44

  Norfolk

  59

  52

  Northamptonshire

  269

  50

  Northumbria

  57

  46

  North Yorkshire

  67

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  65

  52

  South Yorkshire

  64

  58

  Staffordshire

  74

  52

  Suffolk

  73

  78

  Surrey

  72

  52

  Sussex

  75

  58

  Thames Valley

  66

  51

  Warwickshire

  257

  253

  West Mercia

  62

  58

  West Midlands

  59

  48

  West Yorkshire

  63

  53

  Wiltshire

  68

  57

  Dyfed-Powys

  260

  52

  Gwent

  72

  45

  North Wales

  60

  50

  South Wales

  61

  52

  England and Wales

  62

  51

  1 Includes proceedings where the defendant is committed for trial to the Crown Court or the case is withdrawn or discontinued.

  2 Based on less than 200 persons proceeded against; percentages based on small numbers are less reliable and subject to greater error.

  Roads (Policing)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent figures available for the total cost of policing the roads in the United Kingdom; what these figures include; and how they are created.
  198
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1991, approximately 8 per cent. of the total police strength in England and Wales was deployed on specialist traffic duties. The proportion of non-specialist officers' time spent on traffic matters is not recorded. The total costs could not be reliably estimated.

  Police Staff
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff have been employed by each police authority in England and Wales for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The table shows police and civilian strength from 1992. The information for 1979 to 1991 can be found in the appendix to the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, copies of which are in the Library.

  Police and Civilian Strength—1992

  As at 31 October

  Force

  Police

  Civilians

  Avon and Somerset

  3,068

  1,097

  Bedfordshire

  1,129

  387

  Cambridgeshire

  1,262

  448

  Cheshire

  1,888

  543

  City of London

  801

  310

  Cleveland

  1,490

  461

  Cumbria

  1,192

  413

  Derbyshire

  1,803

  581

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,918

  1,045

  Dorset

  1,317

  561

  Durham

  1,390

  542

  Dyfed-Powys

  966

  268

  Essex

  2,923

  1,067

  Gloucestershire

  1,154

  378

  Greater Manchester

  7,084

  2,508

  Gwent

  1,008

  318

  Hampshire

  3,269

  1,078

  Hertfordshire

  1,690

  583

  Humberside

  2,027

  692

  Kent

  3,099

  1,103

  Lancashire

  3,203

  1,075

  Leicestershire

  1,846

  671

  Lincolnshire

  1,188

  486

  Merseyside

  4,687

  1,621

  Norfolk

  1,419

  454

  North Wales

  1,369

  459

  North Yorkshire

  1,411

  461

  Northamptonshire

  1,197

  431

  Northumbria

  3,578

  1,229

  Nottinghamshire

  2,343

  738

  South Wales

  3,182

  1,076

  South Yorkshire

  3,013

  924

  Staffordshire

  2,196

  740

  Suffolk

  1,240

  520

  Surrey

  1,684

  604

  Sussex

  3,007

  971

  Thames Valley

  3,843

  1,457

  Warwickshire

  1,007

  334

  West Mercia

  2,061

  917

  West Midlands

  6,935

  2,444

  West Yorkshire

  5,095

  1,861

  Wiltshire

  1,257

  490

  Metropolitan

  27,804

  14,459

  Filmed Interviews
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the procedure which has to be followed by any person or organisation wishing to film an interview with a convicted prisoner(a) for

  199
  research purposes, (b) for other private purposes and (c) for publication or broadcast; and at what level the decision is taken in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Requests to interview a prisoner must be made to the governor of the holding prison or the public relations branch of the Home Office. Applications from the media must be made in writing giving details of the requirements of the interviewer and the justification for the interview to take place.

  If the interview is allowed to take place for research purposes or private purposes, a signed undertaking is required that none of the material gathered will be used in any publication or broadcast. Requests for interview for the purposes of publication or broadcast are considered by the public relations branch in conjunction with officials or governors, and where necessary after consultation with Ministers.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who gave permission for the filming of an interview with Dennis Nilsen which was subsequently broadcast on television;

  (2) to whom permission was given for the filming of the Nilsen interview; what were the terms of the written request for permission; and what written conditions were placed on the permission granted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on Tuesday 2 February.

  Appeal Cases
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases he referred to the Court of Appeal following an investigation by C3 division at his Department in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Number of cases referred under section 17 (1) (a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of conviction

  Number

  1992

  February

  —

  March

  2

  April

  —

  May

  —

  June

  —

  July

  3

  August

  —

  September

  1

  October

  1

  November

  —

  December

  —

  1993

  January

  4

  Notes:

  (a) In addition, one case was referred in October 1992 in respect of sentence only.

  (b) One case was referred in January 1992 and one other in October 1992 under section 17(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were referred to the Court of Appeal following investigation by his Department in each of the last five years.
  200
  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  In respect of conviction

  Number of cases

  Number of defendants

  (a) Under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

  1988

  2

  2

  1989

  3

  6

  1990

  7

  20

  1991

  10

  12

  1992

  8

  11

  In respect of sentence

  1988

  23

  23

  1989

  6

  6

  1990

  3

  3

  1991

  4

  8

  1992

  1

  1

  (b) Under section 17(1) (b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

  1990

  1

  1

  1991

  2

  2

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of alleged miscarriage of justice cases which were held by C3 division at his Department in 1992 or for the latest data available.

  Mr. Jack
  At the beginning of 1992, 171 representations were under consideration, 790 new representations were received during the year, and 783 representations were concluded; 178 representations were under consideration at the end of 1992.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average time taken to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice by his Department during 1992 or for the latest year available;

  (2) how many cases which are currently being examined by C3 division of his Department, at the latest date available, have been outstanding for more than 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available in the form requested. On the latest available information, the average time taken to deal with representations about an alleged miscarriage of justice is 41 days, but much depends on the complexity of the case and the extent of police or other inquiries that may be required to assess the representations made. Further representations may be received while a case is under consideration, prolonging the conclusion. At 1 February, there were 27 cases which had been under consideration for more than 12 months.

  Frankland Prison
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the incident at Frankland prison involving a sexual assault by an inmate on a women prison officer while carrying out her official duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Serious assaults in prisons are usually investigated by the police. The incident at Frankland, involving a sexual assault on a woman prison officer by an inmate, was immediately referred to Durham constabulary, which is conducting an inquiry. Its findings are not yet known.
  201
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the national safety standards for prison officer staff; and what procedures are being followed by his Department to ensure that these were complied with at Frankland prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The safety of all prison staff is always a prime concern in designing procedures within establishments. Arrangements reflect local conditions and I am satisfied that all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of staff are taken at Frankland. The nature of the work and the inmate population inevitably involves some element of risk.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officer staff have been employed at Frankland prison for each year of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Staffing figures for Frankland prison are available for the last seven years as shown in the table. Before 1986, staffing records were not centrally kept. Further information is not therefore readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Date

  Staff

  1 April 1986

  354

  1 April 1987

  376

  1 April 1988

  378

  1 April 1989

  388

  1 April 1990

  399

  1 April 1991

  404

  1 April 1992

  401

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many local authority areas help and advice is provided to young people who are cautioned; and how many(a) aged under 18 years and (b) aged over 18 years received such assistance in each of the past three years in each local authority area.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Squatting
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to tighten up the law on squatting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  As my hon. Friend knows, we are firmly committed to introduce legislation to tighten up the law on squatting. It is important that any new provisions deal effectively with this clearly unacceptable activity while striking the right balance between the criminal and the civil law. Any new provisions must also be both fair and enforceable. We have been giving very careful thought to the form which legislation might take and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage change in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms of his Department's budget from 1992–93 to 1993–94.
  202
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There is no change in real terms between the Home Office's estimated outturn for 1992–93 and its planned expenditure fur 1993–94, but there is an increase of 2·75 per cent. in cash terms.

  Privatisation
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to privatise parts of his Department over the next year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have given approval for advisers to be engaged in preparation for the privatisation of DTELS, formerly the Directorate of Telecommunications. The aim is to privatise during 1993–94 by means of a trade sale.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about the percentage contribution to gross domestic product provided by manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom; and how this compares with percentages in the other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is in the table.

  Manufacturing industry5 as a percentage of gross domestic product in European Community countries

  1989

  United Kingdom

  119·8

  France

  21·3

  Germany

  31·1

  Italy

  23·2

  Belgium

  23·3

  Netherlands

  20·2

  Luxembourg

  28·4

  Denmark

  15·8

  Ireland

  222·3

  Spain

  26·9

  Portugal

  329·2

  Greece

  415·3

  1 Latest year 1987.

  2 Latest year 1979.

  3 Latest year 1986.

  4 Latest year 1988.

  5 Manufacturing is defined according to the International Standard Industrial Classification Division 38.

  Source: OECD National Accounts.

  United Kingdom manufacturing share of GDP can also be derived from figures published in "UK National Accounts, the Blue Book". These have the attraction of being more up to date. The United Kingdom national accounts data are, however, not directly comparable with data show in the above table and published by the OECD. A reason for non-comparability is that blue book data shown output at factor cost. OECD estimates show output at market prices. Taxes and subsidies are included in estimates at market prices, but are netted out in factor cost estimates.

  Funeral Costs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to require all funeral directors to publish an itemised price list covering all costs associated with arranging a funeral; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  No. Whilst I strongly support price transparency, and would welcome an amendment to the code of conduct of the National Association of Funeral Directors in this direction, I do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to prescribe to the funeral industry how it should prepare its estimates and invoices.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the results of the OFTEL consultancy study into the accounting separation of BT activities to be complete; and if he will place a copy in the Library as soon as it is complete.

  Coal R&D expenditure in United Kingdom, United States of America and Japan Period 1985 to 1990

  1985 £ million

  1986 £ million

  1987 £ million

  1988 £ million

  1989 £ million

  1990 £ million

  United Kingdom

  122·3

  118·2

  58·2

  45·5

  43·8

  45·8

  United States of America

  179·5

  170·8

  140·7

  243·7

  245·3

  472·2

  Japan

  159·9

  152·7

  159·2

  175·9

  137·3

  134·5

  Notes:

  1. United Kingdom R&D expenditure on April-March financial year basis. Annual figures converted to 1990–91 base and inclusive of expenditure by DEn, DTI, DOE, SERC, CEGB, British Coal and British Gas.

  2. Figures for USA and Japan extracted from IEA publication, "Energy policies of IEA countries—1991 reviews". Figures are published in 1991 $US which have been converted to £UK using the IEA average exchange rate of $1·764 to the £ for 1991.

  Offshore Licences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 822, which organisations specifically requested that their advice and response to his consultation on the 14th round of offshore licences should be treated in confidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Consultation of other Departments and interested bodies took place on the understanding that the information provided would be treated in confidence. This is our established practice with regard to consultation on blocks offered for licensing.

  Exceptional Projects Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister for Industry of 26 January,Official Report, column 972, (1) what consultations he has had with organisations representing United Kingdom business in relation to the suspension of section 8 assistance to exceptional projects scheme;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the European Commissioners responsible for (a) competition and (b) industrial policy in relation to the suspension of section 8 assistance to exceptional projects scheme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: Only two projects have been able to satisfy the stringent criteria
  204
  Mr. Leigh
  I understand from the Director General of Telecommunications that a preliminary consultancy report has now been received by OFTEL, and that BT's reactions are currently awaited. Any wider consultations and decisions made in the light of the report will be a matter of public record, with copies of the relevant documents available in the library of the House.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much funding has been given to research into clean coal technology in the United Kingdom for each year since 1985; and what corresponding information he has for Japan and the United States.

  Mr. Eggar
  The comparative coal research expenditure figures available for the United Kingdom, Japan and the USA since 1985 cover the period 1985 to 1990 and are as detailed. Specific figures for clean coal technology research are not known, but most of the expenditure detailed is believed to be focused on the development of clean coal technology for power generation.

  for demonstrating exceptional national benefit in five years. In these circumstances we did not hold consultations with organisations representing United Kingdom business on our decision to suspend the assistance for exceptional projects facility. The AEP facility required approval from the European Commission. We did not consult any Commission officials about the suspension I have announced.

  Steel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations on competition grounds he has made to the European Commission about the proposed merger of the steel tube interests of the main Italian Ilva, German Mannesmann and French Usinor, steel companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I understand the proposed joint venture between Ilva, Mannesmann and Usinor Sacilor, to combine their stainless steel seamless tube operations, is likely to fall for investigation by the European Commission under the merger control regulation. Mergers which qualify for investigation must be notified to the European Commission and member states have the opportunity to comment on them. The United Kingdom passes comments to the EC Commission on all notified cases. If the proposed joint venture between the three steel companies is notified the United Kingdom will assess its competition implications and submit comments in the usual way.
  205
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the United States Government following their announcement that they will be imposing a 105 per cent. levy on imported British steel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: The provisional anti-dumping duties of 109.22 per cent. on British Steel exports of steel plate are unwarranted and wholly disproportionate.

  The actions, brought by the protected United States steel industry, cannot help efforts to secure a much-needed multilateral steel arrangement.

  The President of the Board of Trade has written to United States Commerce Secretary Ron Brown urging him to focus on these matters at the earliest opportunity. The issue was also raised at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 February.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his policy for tourism.

  Mr. Key
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 13 November,Official Report, columns 997–98. I believe that the case is now much less strong for central Government funding of the promotion of tourism in England. The English tourist board has done a great deal over the years to raise standards, to improve access to information, and to show the industry how their products can be developed and marketed. As the industry matures, and the regional tourist boards develop, it is appropriate for other bodies to carry on many of the ETB's central activities. That is reflected in the allocations of Exchequer grants for tourism over the next three years.

  However, I also believe that central Government support for the regional tourist boards should continue. I believe that this support should be targeted much more closely than at present on areas where the industry would not fully exploit tourism potential unaided and where this would assist with economic regeneration. The English tourist board is currently working on proposals for support to the regional tourist boards.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration was given to repeating the assertion of his accountability for the policy, operations and resources of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, contained in the 1990–91 review of the agency, in its 1991–92 report, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Historic Royal Palaces Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Beeton. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Beeton to Mr. Toby Jessel, dated 28 January 1993:
  206
  I am writing to confirm our recent conversation about your Parliamentary Written Question on the Secretary of State's accountability for the policy operation and resources of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency.
  The statements about this in the two documents you referred to derived from the Agency's Framework Document, which is it's Constitution, and was the basis upon which the Agency was established in 1989. That document was to be reviewed after 3 years. This is now in hand and I understand that no changes to the Secretary of State's above stated responsibilities are proposed. I am certainly not seeking any.
  You also asked me whether the rumour that Bushy Park might be transferred to the Agency was true. I said that the question had been considered when the maintenance of Bushy Park had been put out to contract as to whether the same should happen at Hampton Court. It was decided then that merged management would not be appropriate and I do not expect this question to be raised again, at least until the present maintenance contract at Bushy Park expires, which is several years from now.

  Badgers
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individuals have been convicted under the Badgers Act 1973.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is given in the table for the years 1979 to 1991 which is provisional. Data from 1973 to 1978 are not available.

  Number of persons convicted under the Badgers Act 1973, 1979 to 19911

  England and Wales

  Year

  Convictions

  1979

  24

  1980

  20

  1981

  26

  1982

  23

  1983

  50

  1984

  38

  1985

  25

  1986

  67

  1987

  55

  1988

  41

  1989

  53

  1990

  26

  11991

  17

  1Provisional.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russia (Biological Weapons)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 705, to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), what research assistance has been given to Russia in connection with ending biological weapons programmes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has not provided Russia with research assistance in connection with ending biological weapons programmes. Under the terms of a trilateral agreement reached between the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia on 11 September 1992, various measures to monitor compliance with the 1972 biological and toxic weapons convention are envisaged including an examination of ways to promote co-operation in the conversion of biological weapons facilities.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in respect of the resumption of the UN-sponsored talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in regular contact with the United Nations Secretary General about Cyprus, as about other issues, through the Britist ambassador to the United Nations. The Government welcome the agreement by all parties to resume talks in March, and will continue actively to support the efforts of the United Nations.

  Deported Palestinians
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking with regard to the continuing situation of the deported Palestinians.

  Mr. Hogg
  We have made our views very clear to the Israelis, most recently in a meeting between European Community Foreign Ministers and the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on 1 February. The Israeli Government have now taken a helpful step in the right direction. We are urging on all concerned that it should be their top priority to resume the peace process.

  World Television Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which sections of the world BBC World Service television is not broadcast; and when he expects the coverage to be complete.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  BBC World Service television, which is a commercial enterprise, is now available in Europe, most of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Canada, and is on course to achieve its target of world coverage by the end of this year. A service to Australasia is expected to begin soon, and negotiations are under way for services in Latin America and Japan, and for rebroadcasts in the United States.

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recruitment policies at Government communications headquarters, and which groups which are excluded on grounds of ethnic origin or parents' country of origin.

  Mr. Hurd
  No groups are excluded on grounds of ethnic origin. Members of staff at GCHQ must be British citizens, must never have held citizenship other than of the United Kingdom and colonies, and must not hold any nationality or citizenship in addition to British citizenship. As regards parents of applicants, the requirement is that each parent must always have been a Commonwealth citizen as defined by the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from other Governments about employment practices at. Government communications headquarters; and if he will make a statement.
  208
  Mr. Hurd
  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a representation from another Government about employment practices at GCHQ other than in the context of the consideration by members of the International Labour Organisation of the question of staff representation at GCHQ.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applicants for employment at Government communications headquarters in the last five years have been refused on the grounds that their parents came from Ireland; and if he will make it his policy not to bar applicants on such grounds.

  Mr. Hurd
  No applicant would be refused simply on the ground that their parents came from Ireland. What matters is whether the parents hold Commonwealth citizenship as defined by the British Nationality Act 1981. Figures are not kept on how many applications have been refused on that ground.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the most recent figures he has available showing the total annual cost of magistrates court hearings arising from motoring offences.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. L. J. Ferry
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the dates in 1992 when maintenance cheques were received by Hertford county court in respect of Mrs. L. J. Ferry and the dates on which they were remitted to Mrs. L. J. Ferry.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Maintenance payments in respect of Mrs. L. J. Ferry in 1992 were received by the Hertford county court and remitted to Mrs. L. J. Ferry according to the list:

  Payment received by the Court

  Payment remitted to Mrs. Ferry

  20 January 1992

  22 January 1992

  11 February 1992

  18 February 1992

  17 March 1992

  24 March 1992

  24 April 1992

  24 April 1992

  27 May 1992

  27 May 1992

  15 June 1992

  19 June 1992

  28 July 1992

  28 July 1992

  24 August 1992

  24 August 1992

  25 September 1992

  29 September 1992

  27 October 1992

  27 October 1992

  26 November 1992

  26 November 1992

  30 December 1992

  30 December 1992

EDUCATION

  Lingua Programme
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 541, if he will state the reasons underlying

  209
  the decision by the Council of Education Ministers to limit the eligibility for pupil exchanges under the Lingua programme to pupils attending educational establishments supported by public funds.

  Mr. Boswell
  Given the limited resources available, the Council of Education Ministers wished to target public funds narrowly. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Teachers (Non-contact Time)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has of the average weekly non-contact time of teachers in(a) secondary schools and (b) primary schools in (i) 1985 and (ii) 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information on teachers' non-contact time is derived from staffing surveys conducted in secondary schools in 1988 and 1992, and primary schools in 1987. The tables show the actual amount of teachers' non-contact time during pupil timetabled lesson time in the survey week. They are averages for all teachers in the sector, including head teachers.

  Teachers' average non-contact time (hours)

  Maintained Nursery and Primary schools

  1987

  2.0

  Maintained Secondary schools

  1988

  4.2

  1992

  4.7

  Environment and Development Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for complying with the commitment in "Agenda 21" of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to update or prepare strategies for integrating the issues of environment and development into education to undertake a review of curricula to ensure a multi-disciplinary approach.

  Mr. Forth
  In schools the national curriculum gives ample scope for pupils to develop a knowledge and understanding of the environment and how it affects our lives. Several of the national curriculum subjects include studies relevant to education about, for and through the environment.

  In further and higher education, an expert committee was appointed by the Department and the Welsh Office in 1991 to advise on the future development of environmental education: its report was published on 2 February 1993. Its recommendations are being brought to the attention of those to whom they are addressed.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures are available comparing Government assumptions about the levels of local authority expenditure on schools with the actual expenditure in the current year and planned expenditure for next year.

  Mr. Forth
  Education's share of the overall level of spending by local authorities which the Government 210
  assumed for the 1992–93 local authority grant settlement is £18,787 million. The equivalent figure for 1993–94 is £16,854 million; this represents an increase of 2·6 per cent. after taking account of the transfer of responsibilities, notably for further education. The Government do not make assumptions about the amount local authorities will spend on schools. Information about authorities' actual expenditure in 1992–93 and planned expenditure next year is not yet available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number of herds of cattle which have been restocked with calves from overseas BSE-free herds in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available. While Customs and Excise statistics record numbers of animals imported into the United Kingdom each year, no record is kept of the reason for importation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the outcome of experiments attempting to transfer spongiform encephalopathies from BSE-infected material to mink.

  Mr. Soames
  The mink experiment is incomplete and no results are yet available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suspected BSE cases have been placed under restriction each week since 20 November 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested for Great Britain is as follows:

  Week ending

  Number of Form A's served

  27 November 1992

  840

  4 December 1992

  940

  11 December 1992

  955

  18 December 1992

  925

  25 December 1992

  816

  1 January 1993

  549

  8 January 1993

  1,062

  15 January 1993

  993

  22 January 1993

  987

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the possibility of diagnosing rapidly cattle infected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy but not yet clinically ill; and what plans he has to introduce surveys to quantify the extent of subclinical bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cows and cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  Research aimed at developing a test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the live animal is in progress and remains a high priority, but no such test has yet been produced or is likely to be available in the near future. Surveys of the live cattle population for bovine spongiform encephalopathy cannot therefore be carried out.

  Parkhurst Forest
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the public meeting to discuss the Forestry Commission's plans for Parkhurst forest on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Curry
  The public meeting held in Newport, Isle of Wight, on 14 January was arranged by the Forestry Commission so that the local forest district manager could discuss the proposed felling at Mark's corner in Parkhurst forest with interested members of the public. This area is a site of special scientific interest which consists largely of old oak trees; the site is particularly noted for its lichens. The felling proposals form part of a long-term management plan for the area which was agreed with the Nature Conservancy Council, now English Nature, in 1989. The felling is designed to reduce the denser stands of oaks and to thin the beech and sweet chestnut trees, in order to allow more light to reach the stems of trees carrying rare lichens. This will create a more open woodland structure similar to that associated with the traditional management of pasture woodland.

  Most people at the public meeting accepted that some trees should be felled, and many helpful and positive comments were made. The Forestry Commission agreed to implement many of the suggestions, including the request that fewer trees should be felled and that a conservation ride should be created. The Forestry Commission invited the meeting to set up a friends of Parkhurst forest body in order to improve liaison between the commission and the local residents.

  I understand that my hon. Friend recently met the Forestry Commission's regional director and discussed the management of Parkhurst forest with him.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Care Allowances
  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of raising the level of the invalid care allowance to that of(a) retirement pension and (b) two-thirds of average earnings.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 18 November 1992 at col.252.

  Sickness and Maternity Benefits
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to investigate the payment of sickness and maternity benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, North West (Mr. Robinson) on Monday 1 February.

  Child Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in 1993–94 of introducing a disregard for the first(a) £5 and (b) £10 per week of maintenance raised under the Child Support Act 1991 where the parent with care is in receipt of income support.
  212
  Mr. Burt
  Latest estimates of the costs in 1993–94 of a disregard of maintenance in income support are £60 million for a £5 disregard and £115 million for a £10 disregard. These figures take no account of possible behavioural changes.

  Hospital Visits
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were received in 1991–92 by the Benefits Agency in(a) Woolwich and (b) Bexleyheath from parents for assistance with travel and other costs associated with visiting their sick children in hospital; and how many were refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to ensure that existing pension provisions are maintained in the event of a partial or complete takeover of a British company by a foreign company or financier.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A review of the legal framework within which occupational pensions schemes operate, is currently being carried out by the Pensions Law Review Committee. That review will take into account the rights and interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers. Decisions on whether any legislative changes are appropriate will be made in the light of the committee's report.

  Industrial Diseases
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to implement the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that emphysema and chronic bronchitis in underground coal miners should be prescribed as an industrial disease.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 14 December 1992 at column 76.

  Personal Injuries (Damages)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average time taken to reply to solicitors pursuing claims for damages for personal injuries with information on state benefits paid to clients, prior to the setting up of the compensation recovery unit at Hebburn; what is the current time taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The operation of the compensation recovery unit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. David Clelland, dated 2 February 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what was the average time taken to reply to solicitors pursuing claims for damages for personal

  213
  injuries with information on state benefits paid to clients, prior to the setting up of the Compensation Recovery Unit; and what is the current time taken.
  Prior to the setting up of the Compensation Recovery Unit a record of response times to requests for information on state benefits was not maintained. The information you request is therefore not available.
  Since the setting up of the Compensation Recovery Unit in 1990 a record of all requests for information on state benefits has been maintained. However, I should explain that it is not possible to break this down into individual groups such as solicitors pursuing personal injury claims.
  For the six months ending on 31 December 1992 the average response time to all enquiries was 20.5 working days and approximately 90% of all enquiries were dealt with within the unit's target of 30 working days.
  The issue of Certificates of Total Benefit paid, which is the main business of the unit, is being achieved within the statutory time limit of four weeks in 99.97% of all cases.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Miss Alison Freda Leahy of 18 Grove close, Totnes TQ9 SEP, reference NA 17 10 86 D, will hear the result of her application for disability living allowance submitted last May.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 2 February 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when Miss Alison Freda Leahy will hear the result of her application for Disability Living Allowance (DLA), submitted last May.
  According to our records Miss Leahy claimed DLA in February 1992 and a decision was made on 13 April 1992. Unfortunately the letter informing Miss Leahy of the outcome of her claim does not appear to have been sent to her and for this I offer my sincere apologies.
  I can confirm that Miss Leahy has now been notified of the decision. I have replied to you separately in greater detail about her case.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total annual cost to his Department of people unable to work and in receipt of benefit as a result of road accidents.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Allowances (Carers)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will examine ways of relaxing the present link between invalid care allowance and attendance allowance or medium/higher rate care component disability living allowance to enable more carers to qualify for the carer's benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  "Community Care: Carers"
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the recommendations for improving financial support for carers proposed by the fifth report from the House of Commons Social Services Committee of 1989–90, "Community Care: Carers", have been implemented since its publication.

  Mr. Scott
  The earnings limit for invalid care allowance has been raised since the report, from £20 to £40 in April 1992. Subject to parliamentary approval we intend to raise the limit again, to £50 from April this year, and to introduce a £15 disregard for all carers in the income-related benefits. Since October 1991 the carer premium in the income-related benefits has been extended for eight weeks after caring ceases.

WALES

  Pupil Assessment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are his reasons for phasing out the Welsh Joint Education Committee certificate of education;

  (2) if he will list the organisations he consulted prior to his decision to phase out the certificate of education; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consultations he has had with the Welsh Joint Education Committee concerning his proposals to phase out the certificate of education; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the introduction of the national curriculum and its associated assessment procedures in relation to less academic candidates.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 2 February.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special educational needs pupils moved from segregated special schools to integrated mainstream schools in each local education authority area of Wales for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs moving from special schools cannot be identified separately. However, the following table shows the number of pupils with statements transferring from independent or maintained special schools to mainstream schools in each local education authority area in Wales for 1991.

  Number

  Clwyd

  13

  Dyfed

  4

  Gwent

  2

  Gwynedd

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  Powys

  3

  South Glamorgan

  14

  West Glamorgan

  6

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage change in(a) real terms and (b) cash terms of his Department's budget from 1992–93 to 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The total public expenditure provision for programmes within my responsibility in 1993–94, £6,316 million, is 8·7 per cent. more than the original planned provision for 1992–93, £5,809 million. This is an increase of 5·8 per cent. in real terms.

  Included in these figures are additional resources in 1993–94 in respect of (i) the transfer from the Department for Education of responsibility for university funding in Wales; (ii) the transfer from the Department of Social Security to local authorities of responsibility for enhanced support for those who need it for care in their own homes or in residential or nursing homes; (iii) the transfer from the Department of Employment of responsibility for training; and (iv) the new treatment of superannuation costs for civil servants.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the proportionate increase in the numbers of administrative and management staff in the national health service; and what proposals he has to limit the increase in numbers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such representations have been received. Staffing levels are the responsibility of health authorities and national health service trusts and they require sufficient numbers to manage an annual expenditure in Wales of nearly £2 billion in an effective and efficient way for the benefit of patients.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for changes to the cash limits for his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XVI, vote 4 will be reduced by £6,000,000 from £156,095,000 to £150,095,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 5 will be increased by £4,746,000 from £501,172,000 to £505,918,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 8 will be increased by £1,876,000 from £1,276,914,000 to £1,278,790,000; the cash limit on class XVI, vote 9 will be increased by £40,000 from £59,123,000 to £59,163,000. The local authority capital cash limit—WO/LACAP—will be reduced by £2,162,000 from £451,334,000 to £449,172,000. The Housing for Wales cash limit—WO/HEW—will be increased by £35,000,000 from £121,469,000 to £156,469,000.

  The reduction in the cash limit for vote 4 of £6,000,000 reflects a lower than expected demand for places on the TEC programmes mainly for unemployed young people. This reduced requirement will permit a corresponding increase in the provision for industrial expansion through regional selective assistance grants. The increase will be secured by means of a supplementary estimate on class XVI, vote 3.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 5 comprises (i) the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £4,709,000
  216
  for capital expenditure as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992, Official Report, cols 698–702, and (ii) a transfer from class XIII, vote I of £37,000 in respect of part-time training for career registrars.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 8 comprises (i) additional provision of £1,555,000 to cover the interest element in the charges of NHS trusts; (ii) additional resources of £298,000 in respect of changes to the external financing limit for the NHS trust and (iii) a transfer from class XIII, vote 3 of £23,000 in respect of the NHS Estates Agency.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 9 represents a transfer from class VI vote 1 of £40,000 to cover the capital costs associated with the transfer of responsibility to the Welsh Office of training in Wales.

  The decrease of £2,162,000 in the WO/LACAP cash limit represents the net effect of (i) a reduction of £5,162,000 to take account of prior-year capital grant adjustments, partly offset by (ii) an increase of £3,000,000 in respect of the special package of housing measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1992 autumn statement.

  The WO/HFW cash limit will be increased by £35,000,000 to take account of the special package of housing measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1992 autumn statement.

  The net increase represented by these changes will be charged to the reserve and will not add therefore to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an independent environment agency in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15 July 1992 at column 857–58.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Lines (Disposal)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to put the Merseyside Wirral and Northern lines in the same category as the Chiltern line and Isle of Wight lines in respect of disposal.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our intention under the Railways Bill to franchise all passenger services currently run by British Rail.

  British Rail
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the cash ceiling for public service obligation grant to British Rail for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend announced on 8 May 1992 that the ceiling had been set at £1,040 million. This figure has been increased to £1,150 million in the light of revised forecasts. British Rail's external financing limit for 1992–93 is not affected.

  Transport Projects
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to which EC countries take pollution and congestion into consideration as investment criteria when allocating funds in new transport projects; and if he will outline the principal features of the criteria used in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment appraisal procedures vary markedly in their sophistication and scope between countries. All countries undertake some form of environmental assessment of transport schemes, as required by EC directive 85/337/EEC. There is no general agreement on the appropriate techniques for valuing environmental impacts; consequently few countries attempt to value them directly.

  My officials are taking part in the EC EURET project "Cost Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis for New Road Construction", which is surveying the appraisal methodology in use in member states for new road construction, with the ultimate objective of establishing a co-ordinated evaluation method to be made adaptable for use at Community level. The project is due to be completed this year and the final report published early next.

  Road Maintenance (Cost)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the most recent figures available for the cost per mile of road maintenance in the United Kingdom; and how the figure is calculated.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In 1991–92 the average cost of maintenance for the United Kingdom road network was £10,400 per mile. This figure is calculated from information collected by the Department of Transport, Scottish Office, Welsh Office and the Department of Environment (Northern Ireland). It is based on all types of maintenance expenditure, including structural, routine and winter, on all roads, both national and local.

  Road Damage
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has carried out into the relative damage caused to road surfaces by different classes of road vehicles; and if he will give specific details for(a) motor cars of 1300 cc engines and (b) loaded 20 ton commercial vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The research commissioned by the Department is recorded in the following two reports, copies of which are being made available to the Libraries in both Houses:

  (a) "Relative Damaging Power of Wheel Loads in Mixed Traffic" (TRL Laboratory Report 979, Crowthorne, 1981).

  (b) "Trends in Axle Loadings and Their Effect on Design of Road Pavements" (TRRL Research Report 138, Crowthorne, 1988).

  The results of that work have broadly confirmed and extended the original work on this topic undertaken in the United States of America between 1958 and 1961.

  All motorcars, whatever the size of their engine, cause negligible road wear and tear compared with commercial vehicles.
  218
  The relative wear and tear caused by fully laden commercial vehicles in the 20–tonne range is indicated by the following vehicle wear factors expressed as the number of standard 80KN axles.

  Factors

  Two axle rigid (maximum gross weight 17 tonnes)

  3·14

  Three axle rigid (maximim gross weight 26 tonnes)

  3·44

  Three axle artic (maximum gross weight 26 tonnes)

  4·50

  Freight
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken into the environmental effects of freight travelling by(a) road and (b) rail; and how these are taken into consideration as investment criteria when allocating funds in new transport projects.

  Mr. Freeman
  Research carried out by the Department into the environmental effects of freight travelling by road includes the "Lorries in the Community" study, undertaken by the Department in association with the Civic Trust and the County Surveyors Society, and the lorry management study, from which the resulting guidance was published in 1990.

  The means by which environmental considerations are taken into account in the Department's investment appraisal procedures are explained in the Department's publication "The role of investment appraisal in road and rail transport" (1991).

  The Government pay freight facilities grants to encourage private companies to use rail in cases where there are wider environmental and other benefits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced substantial enhancements to this scheme, together with a new scheme, similar in concept, to contribute towards track charges for freight flows which would otherwise travel by road.

  These measures, together with our proposal for a lorry weight concession for combined transport—on which we shall be consulting widely—will help to encourage wider use of intermodal rail freight services.

  Transport Costs
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to quantify the respective real costs, including all associated and indirect demands, on public funds of(a) road and (b) rail transport in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  Levels of public expenditure on road and rail transport are set out in the Department of Transport's annual report.

  No comprehensive information is available on the effects of road and rail transport on other public expenditure programmes or on taxation, although costs such as policing are included in the track costs calculation for roads.

  Road Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent publications have been made available, and to whom, relating to road safety.
  219
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The following publications have been issued in the last three months:Circular Roads 1/93 Local speed Limits,
  "Killing Speed and Saving Lives—The Government's strategy for tackling the problem of excess speed on our roads"
  The Highway Code

  Copies were sent on publication to local authorities, local authority associations, police, interested professional organisations, lobby groups, monitoring organisations, and individuals who have requested copies. I also sent copies of the first two documents to Members who have written to me on the subject of speed in recent months.

  In addition, a number of leaflets and posters have been issued to road safety officers, the police and motoring organisations dealing with winter driving, drinking and driving, including rehabilitation courses for drink drive offenders; and seat belts.

  The DVLA has also distributed leaflets on seatbelts, the highway code, speed and cycling with vehicle excise duty reminders. The transport research laboratory regularly publishes research reports on road safety topics.

  Fatalities and Injuries
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities and serious injuries occurred per passenger mile, for each of the last five years for which figures are available for(a) the roads and (b) the railways.

  Mr.Freeman
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Fatel and serious injuries per billion passenger miles

  Road

  Rail

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious injuries

  Fatal

  Serious injuries

  1991

  10·9

  124

  2·3

  3·9

  1990

  12·6

  145

  1·4

  4·8

  1989

  13·0

  153

  1·3

  5·5

  1988

  13·2

  166

  2·7

  6·9

  1987

  14·0

  177

  1·6

  3·9

  Departmental Investment Priorities
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account his Department takes in determining its transport investment priorities of the comparative safety risks associated with(a) road and (b) rail travel.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment appraisal on roads is carried out using a well-established set of values for casualty reductions. The increased funding for local safety schemes indicates the high priority which is given to proven cost-effective measures for reducing road casualties.

  All railway investment includes the cost of meeting relevant safety standards. Where alternative road and rail schemes are compared the safety benefits of any transfers from road to rail are taken into account in assessing the case for grant support.

  Road Congestion and Accidents
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made as to the total cost to industry of(a) road congestion and (b) road accidents.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  (a) The Department does not make an estimate of the total cost of road congestion as it 220
  does not believe there is a reliable method of making such an estimate. However, for each road scheme the contribution which it makes to reducing congestion is a central part of the assessment. This is in line with the objective of the roads programme to assist in economic development through the reduction of transport costs.

  (b) The best available estimate of the loss of productive capacity in the economy as a whole from road accidents is £1.8 billion per annum. This applies to all sectors, not industry alone as usually defined.

  Underground and Rail Systems (Deaf People)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to ensure that underground and rail systems have appropriate electronic boards or visual displays capable of notifying deaf and hearing people of changes to scheduled services or safety and security alerts.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is jointly funding with the passenger transport executives a project to produce guidelines on facilities for people with disabilities in transport terminals and interchanges. These guidelines, which are due to be published shortly, will include advice on the use of visual displays to meet the needs of people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

  Railways Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he expects in the current structure and practice of national negotiations and conciliation practises within the railway service consequent to the implementation of the Railways Bill; and what assessment he has made of the consequent desirability of maintaining a single structure of training and qualifications for various grades of personnel other than the means of funding such internal training and supervision of operating standards.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: The existing national arrangements for those parts of the business that remain in BR will be unchanged, subject to any renegotiation found to be necessary after privatisation. Arrangements for negotiation and conciliation with employees in those parts of BR that transfer to the private sector will be for the new owners and employees.

  The Railway Industry Training Council, a voluntary body, already has private sector representation. There is no reason why its work should not continue after privatisation.

  Accident Prevention
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's budget for accident prevention.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: Safety and accident prevention are a high priority throughout the Department and many of the Department's activities are designed to enhance safety. It is not therefore possible to give a separate figure for the Department's budget for accident prevention.

SCOTLAND

  Constitutional Change
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on constitutional change in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Our review of constitutional arrangements is well advanced. We will report to the House once the results of the review are complete.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further stock he has taken on the future government of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Our review of constitutional arrangements is well advanced and I hope we will be able to report to the House in a few weeks' time.

  Long-term Care (House Sales)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland to this date have had their homes sold as assets to pay for a placement in long-term care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Statistics on the number of residents in long-term residential care who have sold their former dwellings in order to meet the cost of long-term care accommodation are not held centrally.

  Stobhill Hospital
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Stobhill hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  Greater Glasgow health board is conducting a review of all its acute and maternity services. Stobhill hospital features as part of that review. I look forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.

  Holyrood House
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many days, in each year since 1987, the Palace of Holyrood House was occupied by the sovereign.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In recent years Her Majesty and other members of the royal family have made regular use of the Palace of Holyrood House. In addition the Lord High Commissioner is in residence for some 10 days each year. The palace was also a very successful venue for the European Council last December.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many small businesses in the construction industry have ceased trading in Scotland in the last three months.

  Mr. Stewart
  Comprehensive figures on the number of business failures involving small firms in the construction sector in Scotland are not available.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress towards the completion of the bridge to Skye.
  222
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Because of the very stormy weather conditions recently experienced, the planned floating-out and sinking operation for the bridge caissons has been delayed. The contractor intends to mobilise his resources quickly for this critical operation as soon as an appropriate weather window becomes available. It is not expected that the target of completion by mid—1995 will be affected.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses in making appointments to the boards of NHS trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend appoints NHS trust non-executive directors for the personal qualities that they have and their ability to make an effective contribution, individually and collectively, to the trust's work.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria were used by him in selecting the members of the three hospital trusts in Ayrshire.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend appoints NHS trust non-executive directors for the personal qualities that they have and their ability to make an effective contribution, individually and collectively, to the trust's work.

  Oil Spillage (Shetland Islands)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the rate of progress of cleaning up the oil spillage in the Shetland Islands and its effect on wildlife and agriculture.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Very good progress has been made in cleaning up the visible oil pollution from the wrecked tanker MV Braer. Comprehensive arrangements have been put in place to monitor the immediate and longer term effects. My right hon. Friend outlined the steps taken by the Government in his statement of 11 January. The ecological steering group has been set up and will certainly be monitoring wildlife and agriculture.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of long-term unemployed(a) adults and (b) persons aged 16 years to 24 years recorded by jobcentres covering the east end of Glasgow; and what percentage of the total unemployment in these centres these figures represent.

  Mr. Stewart
  Within the constituencies of Glasgow, Shettleston and Glasgow, Provan in October 1992 there were 1,090 persons aged less than 25 who had been unemployed for more than a year. This represents 33 per cent. of the unemployed in this age group. There were 3,660 persons aged over 25 who had been unemployed for more than a year, representing 55 per cent. of the unemployed in this age group.

  Scottish Enterprise (Charter Statement)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the charter statement of Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise has recently published a charter standard statement outlining the body's
  223
  commitment to serving the economic and environmental needs of Scotland and to enhancing the skills of its people. The local enterprise companies are developing parallel statements; and two have already been published. My right hon. Friend had emphasised the importance of the citizens charter in his strategic guidance to Scottish Enterprise, towards the end of 1991; and the Government warmly welcome the action which Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are taking to put citizens charter principles into practice.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what forecast he has made as to the production of Scotch whisky in 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has made no such forecast.

  Seed and Ware Potatoes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the contribution of the seed and ware potato industries annually to Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Potatoes are an important feature of Scottish farm production which are renowned for their high health status and quality.

  Total production is normally in excess of 1 million tonnes annually and worth an estimated £70 million. This represents some 4·5 per cent. of total farm output.

  Local Authorities (Employment Practices)
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement as to the availability of advice from the Scottish Office to local authorities on their employment practices.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no locus in the employment practices of local authorities and has therefore offered no advice on the subject. However, the national code of local government conduct, issued in April 1990, includes guidance on conduct by councillors in employment matters.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a guidance note for councillors in Scottish local authorities on good practices in employment.

  Mr. Stewart
  The national code of local government conduct, issued in April 1990, includes guidance on conduct by councillors in employment matters. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue any further guidance to councillors in Scottish local authorities.

  Private Medical Insurance (Advertising)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has recently given to health boards and NHS trusts on permitting private medical insurance to include hospitals in advertising material.

  Mr. Stewart
  No advice about permitting private medical insurance companies to include hospitals in advertising material has been offered to health boards and NHS trusts, but in July 1991 the Department of Health 224
  wrote to all United Kingdom health insurers advising them of the statutory framework and management controls governing the conduct of private practice in NHS hospitals.

  Stranraer Harbour
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist the improvement of facilities at Stranraer harbour for foot passengers and berthing of vessels.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Stranraer is a commercial harbour and, as such, falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Improvements to facilities at commercial harbours are a matter for the owners.

  HLCAs and Wool Price Guarantee
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the effect on hill farmers of the reduction in hill livestock compensatory allowances and the ending of the wool price guarantee scheme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have received representations on both matters from several hon. Members, farmers and a number of bodies representing farmers and crofters. In responding to these representations, I have pointed out that a number of recent decisions will result in farmers and crofters receiving for 1992 an additional £4·05 per ewe in the sheep annual premium payment, £1·80 more than the reduction of £2·25 in the hill sheep compensatory allowance.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many written parliamentary questions he has answered in the current Session.

  Mr. Lang
  As at Tuesday 3 February my ministerial colleagues and I have answered 1,261 written parliamentary questions in the current Session, 166 of which I have responded to personally.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the change in costs of civil legal aid over the latest five years.

  Mr. James Douglas-Hamilton
  The gross expenditure on civil legal aid in 1987–88 was £15·7 million. This had risen to £16·6 million in 1991–92. Estimated expenditure in the current year is £23·5 million, a rise of 43 per cent. over the previous year.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the value of inward investment to Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  Figures prior to the establishment of Locate in Scotland in 1981 are not available.

  From April 1981 to March 1992 Locate in Scotland has recorded planned inward investment in Scotland by companies, totalling some £4·6 billion.

  Edinburgh
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made on the role of Edinburgh(a) as a key financial centre and (b) as a venue for major international conferences.

  Mr. Stewart
  Edinburgh has a well-established reputation as a business and financial centre of international standing. The city is the acknowledged focus of the Scottish financial services sector which contributes some 15 per cent. to Scottish gross domestic product—twice the European Community average. Edinburgh's status in the international conference market has been strongly enhanced by its success in hosting the meeting of the European Council in December 1992 and will be further strengthened by the completion of the Edinburgh international conference centre in 1995.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the funding of local government.

  Deaths from head injuries, Scotland, 1980–91

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Fracture of Skull and face (ICD 800–804)

  Male

  156

  127

  122

  144

  102

  85

  90

  77

  70

  56

  63

  61

  Female

  42

  38

  44

  34

  43

  34

  33

  34

  16

  21

  23

  23

  Intracranial injury (excluding skull fracture) (ICD 850–854)

  Male

  184

  185

  176

  177

  203

  199

  195

  216

  200

  194

  193

  202

  Female

  79

  68

  57

  67

  68

  69

  67

  81

  59

  93

  65

  65

  The figures include those deaths coded to the World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) codes 800–804 and 850–854. The General Register Office for Scotland uses only a restricted code list for nature-of-injury codes. Deaths from head injuries classified to ICD 9 codes such as 870–904 (laceration and open wound) and 910–929 (superficial injury, contusion and crushing with intact skin surface) are not included, but are likely to be few in number.

  Dundee Sheriff Court
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases were scheduled for each sitting of Dundee sheriff court during the most recent three-month period for which figures are available; how many of these cases come to trial on the day for which they were first scheduled; in how many of these cases the

  Summary trials

  Sheriff and jury

  Cases set down for trial

  379

  19

  Trials proceeding

  73 (19 per cent.

  4 (21 per cent.)

  Trials disposed—no evidence led—including guilty pleas

  152 (40 per cent.)

  13 (68 per cent.)

  Trials adjourned—new dates fixed

  152 (40 per cent.)

  2 (10 per cent.)

  Trials adjourned—lack of court time

  2 (0·5 per cent.)

  0

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to create a post of a prisons or prisoners' ombudsman; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proposals to revise the procedures under which prisoners in Scotland are able to make requests and complaints and to air grievances were
  226
  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend met the convention on 18 January as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters. Further such meetings will be held later this year on dates to be arranged.

  Planning Procedures
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the mechanism for challenging planning appeal decisions in Scotland and costs thereof; and what proposals he has to change it.

  Mr. Lang
  On 3 September 1992 I met representatives of Borders regional council to discuss a number of issues, including the planning appeal system and the award of costs in appeal cases. There are no plans to change the appeal system at present.

  Head Injury Deaths
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have died from head injuries in Scotland in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Stewart
  The figures requested are given in the table.

  defendant pleaded guilty on the day scheduled for trial; and how many of these cases were cancelled and re-scheduled for another day.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comprehensive information is not collected in the form requested and is not readily available. Information on the outcome of cases set down for trial in the sheriff courts is collected centrally on a quarterly basis. The figures for Dundee sheriff court for the quarter ended 31 December 1992 are as follows:

  contained in a report of a Scottish prison service group entitled "Right and Just" which was published for comment in September 1992.

  Comments on the recommendations made in the report are being considered and an announcement on the introduction of procedures, which will contain an independent element, will be made in due course.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to visit the storm and flood-damaged areas of north Tayside to assess the amount of public aid required to restore the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Housing and I have visited Perth and the surrounding area to assess the damage at first hand. The Government have triggered the Bellwin scheme to assist Tayside authorities with expenditure incurred by them in dealing with the effects of the flooding. We have also arranged for special assistance to be provided for the repair of flood defences for agricultural areas.

  Shetland (Oil Pollution)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance is being given by the Government to animal welfare organisations active in saving wildlife in the aftermath of the oil spillage from MV Braer.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The Scottish Office has made the following offers, under the special grant environmental programme, of financial assistance for rescue and care of wildlife:

  The Hillswick Wildlife Centre: £5,000 for rehabilitation of seals and otters.

  The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: £5,000 for care and treatment of oiled birds.

  In addition, Scottish National Heritage is providing grant of £10,000 for rescue and rehabilitation of wildlife as well as contributing practical advice and assistance to this work.

  The European Commission has offered to match this overall support with £20,000. The EC and SNH support is to be paid to voluntary groups in the light of advice from the Shetland wildlife response co-ordinating committee.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contact, consultation meetings or discussions the Minister for Health at the Scottish Office has had with Tayside health board on the subject of hospital services at(a) Stracathro, (b) Arbroath infirmary or (c) other hospitals in Angus.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Health and Home Affairs met the chairman and general manager of Tayside health board on 29 January. The board reported on its progress with the review of acute services and outlined its remaining work programme.

  Nursing and Midwifery
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing and midwifery jobs were lost between September 1989 and September 1991; and if he will provide a breakdown by health board in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Information on nursing and midwifery posts is not available centrally. The table shows the changes in
  228
  whole-time equivalent of qualified nurses and midwives employed in the NHS in Scotland between 30 September 1989 and 1991.

  National Health Service qualified nursing and midwifery staff, by health board: change in whole-time equivalents from 30 September 1989 to 30 September 1991

  Health Board

  Difference in WTE 1989–91

  Scotland

  -10·4

  Argyll and Clyde

  133·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  131·7

  Borders

  -33·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  40·8

  Fife

  94·3

  Forth Valley

  81·2

  Grampian

  28·4

  Greater Glasgow

  -636·2

  Highland

  57·8

  Lanarkshire

  66·4

  Lothian

  -112·9

  Orkney

  13·5

  Shetland

  19·8

  Tayside

  95·6

  Western Isles

  0·2

  CSA

  8·7

  Sheriff of Grampian and the Islands
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many judgments the Sheriff of Grampian and the Islands, sitting at Peterhead, has had avizandum for a period in excess of two months; if he will specify the date on which avizandum was made in respect of each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 February 1993]: The sheriff of Grampian, Highland and Islands who sits at Peterhead currently has three cases awaiting judgment in which avizandum was made more than two months previously. The dates on which avizandum was made are as follows: 12 February, 19 August and 28 August 1992. Judgment in each of the three cases has been prepared in draft form and will be finalised and issued by 12 February 1993.

  Incontinence
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children suffer from incontinence.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: This information is not held centrally.

  Health Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the cost of administration expressed as a percentage of total expenditure for(a) Tayside health board and (b) the Scottish health service in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: The information is as follows:
  229

  Tayside health board

  Scottish health service

  Year

  Administration costs £'000s

  Total expenditure £'000s

  Per cent.

  Administration costs £'000s

  Total expenditure £'000s

  Per cent.

  1978–78

  13,543

  79,193

  4·47

  81,528

  2865,767

  9·42

  1979–80

  14,123

  92,795

  4·44

  72,680

  21,024,002

  7·10

  1980–81

  15,032

  119,718

  4·20

  92,408

  21,329,420

  6·95

  1981–82

  15,482

  130,440

  4·20

  101,288

  21,494,720

  6·78

  1982–83

  10,491

  139,313

  7·53

  132,032

  1,622,742

  8·14

  1983–84

  12,432

  147,606

  8·42

  138,192

  1,726,950

  8·00

  1984–85

  12,124

  156,199

  7·76

  141,829

  1,852,563

  7·66

  1985–86

  12,761

  163,452

  7·81

  153,452

  1,963,711

  7·81

  1986–87

  13,759

  177,530

  7·75

  162,400

  2,081,844

  7·80

  1987–88

  14,573

  187,458

  7·77

  174,541

  2,274,155

  7·67

  1988–89

  15,452

  212,164

  7·28

  189,606

  2,509,327

  7·56

  1989–90

  16,797

  230,949

  7·27

  205,975

  2,728,323

  7·55

  1990–91

  18,680

  257,114

  7·27

  230,766

  2,982,854

  7·74

  1991–92

  21,290

  303,794

  7·01

  263,529

  3,650,330

  7·22

  1 Administration costs for 1978–78 to 1981–82 relate to headquarters administration only. Hospital and community administration costs are not held centrally.

  2 Community health service administration costs for 1978–79 to 1981–82 were not identified separately in health board accounts.

  Burglaries
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) burglaries of a dwelling, (b) burglaries other than a dwelling and (c) burglaries in total were recorded (i) in each police force area and (ii) in total for Scotland in each year between 1979 and 1991.

  Number of cases of housebreaking1 recorded by the police in Scotland, 1979–91

  Police Force

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Central

  2,854

  3,222

  3,583

  4,321

  3,875

  3,865

  4,048

  3,871

  3,792

  3,723

  3,928

  4,110

  4,881

  Dumfries and Galloway

  975

  1,045

  1,568

  1,712

  1,416

  1,295

  1,203

  1,171

  1,150

  1,100

  1,147

  1,602

  2,065

  Fife

  2,776

  3,433

  3,831

  3,916

  4,092

  4,448

  4,874

  4,972

  5,364

  5,506

  5,826

  7,120

  8,278

  Grampian

  3,763

  4,004

  5,155

  5,651

  5,136

  5,316

  5,530

  6,576

  7,255

  5,665

  5,097

  5,470

  6,343

  Lothian and Borders2

  12,826

  13,719

  16,987

  18,698

  22,868

  21,637

  15,629

  14,209

  14,216

  13,360

  13,462

  15,460

  17,516

  Northern

  1,285

  1,433

  1,742

  1,657

  1,572

  1,766

  1,724

  1,727

  1,775

  1,253

  1,375

  1,436

  1,514

  Strathclyde

  48,202

  47,524

  57,310

  64,991

  64,134

  67,466

  61,506

  57,051

  58,106

  54,043

  55,559

  59,331

  67,131

  Tayside

  3,954

  4,066

  5,505

  5,325

  5,427

  6,311

  6,184

  7,328

  6,977

  6,761

  7,333

  7,192

  8,402

  Scotland

  76,635

  78,446

  95,681

  106,271

  108,520

  112,104

  100,698

  96,905

  98,635

  91,411

  93,727

  101,721

  116,130

  1 Includes cases of attempted housebreaking and housebreaking with intent to steal.

  2 Figures for 1983 and 1984 were partly inflated following the introduction of computerisation. In the period August 1984—September 1988 a change in classification slightly reduced the number of housebreakings recorded: in cases where garden sheds, greenhouses, lock up garages (not attached to a dwelling house), non residential caravans and portacabins used for storage were broken into such offences were classified as theft by opening lockfast places rather than housebreaking.

  Community Councils
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the role and responsibilities of community councils in his consideration of the future structure of local government; what measures he has in place to encourage representations on this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Our consultation paper on the future structure of local government in Scotland invites views on whether community councils should be given the statutory right to comment on planning applications affecting their area; on whether this right should be extended to matters other than planning and, if so, what these matters should be; and on other ways in which community councils might support the work of local authorities. Many community councils are taking a keen interest in the reform proposals. Their comments will be studied with interest.
  230
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [Holding Answer 2 February 1993]: The available information collected centrally is given in the table.

ENVIRONMENT

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount made available to disabled people through the disabled facilities grant; and how much was paid out through grants for the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amount of final payments of disabled facilities grants in England from their inception in July 1990 up to September 1992 is £76·8 million of mandatory and discretionary grants. The total amount during the 12 months from October 1991 to September 1992 is £56.3 million.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what items of equipment are provided through a disabled facilities grant.

  Mr. Baldry
  Disabled facilities grants under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are awarded
  231
  by local housing authorities. Such grants are usually confined to larger items, such as stair lifts and through floor lifts, requiring structural modifications to a dwelling. Smaller items are normally provided by welfare authorities under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the applications by region, for the last 12–month period for which figures are available, for disabled facilities grants; and how many of these applications were(a) given formal approval and (b) eligible for 100 per cent. grant aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department collects information from local authorities about the number of approvals of disabled facilities grants but not on the numbers of applications. The table shows figures of approval over the 12 months to September 1992 by standard statistical region in England.

  Disabled Facilities Grants: Approvals:October 1991 to September 1992

  (numbers of grants)

  Standard statistical region

  Mandatory grants

  Discretionary grants

  North

  866

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,251

  14

  East Midlands

  2,130

  15

  East Anglia

  795

  9

  Greater London

  1,188

  56

  Rest of South East

  3,406

  96

  South West

  1,777

  38

  West Midlands

  1,784

  58

  North West

  2,731

  13

  England

  18,928

  302

  The Department collects information about payments of grant that cover the full cost of relevant works—that is, those eligible for 100 per cent. grant aid—but not for approvals. The most recent information relates to final payments during the financial year 1991–92, as shown in the following table.

  Disabled Facilities Grants: Final Payments:Mandatory and Discretionary grants:April 1991 to March 1992

  (numbers of grants)

  Standard statistical region

  Total

  Covering full cost of relevant works

  Column 2 as a percentage of column 1

  North

  743

  561

  76

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,233

  2,710

  84

  East Midlands

  1,385

  916

  66

  East Anglia

  582

  456

  78

  Greater London

  714

  438

  61

  Rest of South East

  2,382

  1,802

  76

  South west

  1,511

  1,211

  80

  West Midlands

  1,402

  954

  68

  North West

  1,808

  1,454

  80

  England

  13,760

  10,502

  76

  Urban Expenditure
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department's urban expenditure is per capita in England.
  232
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government support urban regeneration in England through a wide range of programmes. My Department's urban group of programmes is spending over £1 billion in 1992–93, of which some £960 million is targeted on the 57 urban priority areas. Dividing that figure by the 15 million estimated population of those areas gives a per capita figure of £64; dividing by the 48.1 million estimated total population of England would give a per capita figure of £20.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the black and Asian communities on the future of the urban programme; and what further consultations he plans to have.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Decisions on the new urban programme arrangements were taken having regard to all the relevant factors, including their effect on the black and Asian communities. Taking city challenge together with the urban programme, resources will rise from £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in 1993–94. This will mean significant additional benefits for inner city residents, including ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to conduct a full review of urban policy.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Urban policy will continue to be kept under review in the light of information derived from the 1991 census and other sources.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which categories of projects that were eligible to bid for urban programme funds are not eligible for urban partnership funds.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All categories of urban programme capital projects and revenue projects directly linked to these are eligible to bid for urban programme funds; but in assessing bids we shall give preference to the factors listed under the assessment criteria set out in the operational guidance for the urban partnership fund.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit an urban programme scheme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Department of the Environment Ministers will continue to visit the urban priority areas on a regular basis and see a range of schemes supported by urban programme and other inner cities initiatives.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those organisations and bodies in Lambeth that will eventually cease to be funded under the urban programme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Organisations now funded under the urban programme will continue to receive support for up to four years for projects which have already been approved. They may also be eligible to receive support under city challenge or the urban partnership fund.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to have outturn figures on
  233
  the numbers of (a) projects supported, (b) jobs created or preserved and (c) training places supported, through the urban programme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I expect to have this information available by the end of May 1993.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the Woolwich industrial estate and applications for city challenge, city grant and urban programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Woolwich industrial estate featured in the London borough of Greenwich's round 2 city challenge bid last April as an area where Government grant might assist the retention and expansion of firms. Against strong competition from other boroughs this bid was unsuccessful. Only one preliminary city grant application has been received from a company on the estate, but after discussions between the Department's appraiser and the developer's agent it was concluded that a full application was unlikely to succeed. The urban programme has assisted six firms on the estate with grants totalling £260,000 for improvements to their premises over the past four years and existing commitments continue to be funded. An application has now been made by the London borough of Greenwich under the new urban partnership fund, which supersedes the urban programme for new schemes in 1993–94, for grant towards environmental and security improvements to communal parts of the estate. The application is being considered and a decision is expected to be announced shortly.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 656–57, if he will publish a breakdown by each urban programme authority of (a) the 9,855 projects supported, (b) the 29,660 jobs created or preserved and (c) the 86,528 training places supported, through the urban programme in 1990–91;

  (2) pursuant to his answers of 30 November 1992, Official Report, column 14, and 11 January, Official Report, columns 656–57, if he will publish a breakdown by each urban programme authority of the local authorities' forecasts of outputs in 1991–92 and 1992–93 of the urban programme in terms of (a) projects supported, (b) jobs created or preserved and (c) training places supported.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Urban Policy
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the research commissioned from Professor Bryan Robson into urban policy.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The research on the impact of urban policy instruments commissioned from the Centre for Urban Policy Studies has not yet been completed. When it is we will decide how to disseminate the findings.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much each district council in Hampshire received in each year since 1987 under the(a) urban programme, (b) city grant, (c) derelict land
  234
  grant, (d) urban aid, (e) enterprise zones, (f) estate action, (g) city action teams, (h) city challenge, (i) inner city task force and (j) national garden festivals; and what was the average expenditure per local authority in England in each of those years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Most of the programmes specified fall within my Department's urban group of programmes which are targeted mainly on the 57 urban priority areas. These do not include Hampshire local authorities. However, Hampshire local authorities did receive the following:

  Derelict land grant

  District council

  £ million

  1987–88

  Portsmouth

  0·249

  1988–89

  Portsmouth

  0·190

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  Portsmouth

  0·003

  Test Valley

  0·004

  1992–93

  Portsmouth

  0·009

  Estate action

  District council

  £ million

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Eastleigh

  0·105

  Southampton

  0·105

  1990–91

  Southampton

  0·209

  1991–92

  Southampton

  0·184

  Portsmouth

  0·250

  1992–93

  Portsmouth

  1·184

  The 1992–93 figures are projected outturn.

  Expenditure under my Department's urban group of programmes is expected to exceed £1 billion in 1992–93. Details of my Department's programmes are in the relevant public expenditure White Papers and the Department's annual reports; the 1993 annual report will be published shortly.

  Caravan Sites Act
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making for his Department's consultation paper about reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to be made available for public inspection.

  Mr. Baldry
  The consultation paper "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968" was issued on 18 August 1992. I am today placing in the Library of the House lists of the responses received to this paper. Copies of the responses themselves have been placed in my Department's library.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking in the light of the report of the quality of urban air review group to integrate local authority monitoring efforts with the national air quality monitoring network; and what additional funds he will make available to assist local authorities in undertaking quality assured monitoring.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report has only been published very recently, and we are studying its recommendations. We
  235
  had however already concluded that better integration between the national and local monitoring networks was needed. In the White Paper, "This Common Inheritance: The Second Year Report", we announced our intention of issuing a discussion paper on the subject this year. Meanwhile, the quality assurance and quality control procedures for urban air quality monitoring which are being developed under my Department's research programme will be a significant contribution in kind to local authorities' monitoring work.

  Household Waste Disposal Centres
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of household waste disposal centres maintained by each local authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which aspects of the Property Services Agency in Northern Ireland responsibility(a) has been or (b) is about to be transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
  236
  Mr. Redwood
  I have today written to the hon. Member about this matter.

  Water Courses (Minewater Pumping)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the effect on surface water courses, pollution of water courses and water supplies and the raising of the water table consequent on the cessation of minewater pumping; and if he will ensure that no pumping will cease until the results of such studies are known.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: None. It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first place, to assess the environmental effects of stopping minewater pumping and what steps may need to be taken to minimise any adverse impact. I understand that arrangements have been made between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority for effective liaison over any proposed closures.

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

Middle East Peace Process
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of past unanimous declarations by the Heads of State and Government, the presidency of the Community is actively seeking a resumption of negotiations between the Arab states, the Palestinians and the Government of Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, yes. The European Community will continue to urge all parties to persevere with the peace process.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. However, will the Government confirm that it really is in the interests of the whole world and particularly of the European Community that these negotiations should be resumed without delay? Will the Community use the whole of its financial and commercial power to ensure resumption and a carrying through of the process to a successful completion?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord that an early resumption of the peace process is in everyone's interests. The role of the European Community is to help the parties reach agreement. It is not for us to prescribe a solution which, to be durable, must be freely agreed between the parties.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Arab countries held out the hand of friendship to the Israelis and recognised their existence, that would do more to bring about a peaceful solution in the Middle East than any other method?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Friendship can be a great precursor to lasting peace. We have always considered, as I think he knows, the Arab boycott iniquitous and incompatible with the spirit of the peace process. We made a series of demarches in Arab capitals in September. We have urged, as EC partners, both the Arab League and the Arab governments to end the boycott as part of the confidence-building process. That would be a very good step forward. I hope that when any single country does start a greater friendship, as from time to time Egypt has tried to do, other Arab nations will not condemn it for doing so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not help friendship if all parties in the Middle East obeyed United Nations Resolutions? Would it not also help the peace process at the present time if Israel in particular obeyed the United Nations resolution which says that the people expelled from Gaza should be immediately returned to their homes?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think your Lordships already know that not only did we vote for Security Council Resolution 799, which is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred, but we fully believe that the Israelis should comply with it. However, they have taken a sizeable step towards implementing it. One hundred returnees are not enough; we hope that they will build on that. The main objective must be to ensure the early resumption of the peace process. That requires the kind of flexibility that the noble Lord was indicating.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is very difficult to chuck out a couple of hundred people from the country which they think is their country, then take back 100 or so and offer them the hand of friendship at the same time. Does the Minister not agree that all sides—Arabs and Israelis—should sit down sensibly under the auspices of the United Nations and proclaim a form of peace which would last for quite some time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords, but I think recent events simply underline that the peace process is the only way to resolve the overall problems of the region. Above all, it is important that all sides reinforce their efforts to negotiate peace. That is the main objective. The successful resumption of the process must be achieved.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Baroness quite rightly said that it is not for the European Community to prescribe a solution. But most emphatically it is for the Community to try to get United Nations resolutions enforced. Is she aware that the Israelis are still wholly at variance with United Nations Resolution 799 regarding the deportees? What action has the Community taken? We know that over many years the Community has protested to successive Israeli governments about their violations of Security Council resolutions. Is not the time coming to go beyond mere protests and exercise some pressure on Israel to obey international laws?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, it is absolutely essential that Security Council Resolution 799 is enforced. I believe that one of the difficulties is that at times we may not have been heard. However, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that on Monday of this week the presidency of the European Community informed Mr. Peres that the EC did not want to be put into the position of having to address the issue of the updating of the 1975 EC-Israel co-operation agreement in the absence of a solution to the deportations problem. So actually we have made it abundantly clear to the Government of Israel this very week.
Lord Richard: My Lords, from recent press reports it would certainly seem that the release back into Israel of 100 people expelled by the Israelis is part of an agreement between Israel and the Americans whereby Israel releases 100 deportees and the Americans agree to use their veto to protect Israel in the Security Council. First, can the noble Baroness say whether that is her understanding of the relationship between the United States and Israel on this matter? Secondly, can she give the House an assurance that, whatever the Americans may have said to Israel about it, the United Kingdom is not following the same path?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not prepared to speculate, even in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as to what the US-Israeli agreement might or might not be. Given that it is very early days for policy matters in Washington, I should be surprised if anything as clear as the suggestion made by the noble Lord had actually come about. I have made quite clear our position which is supported by our 11 fellow-members of the European Community. I do not believe that anything which varies from that is in the best interests of Israel and is certainly not our policy.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government bring their voice to bear in informing the new United States Administration, and if possible publicly, of the fact that Israel would not have been in a position to defy a whole string of United Nations resolutions over the past 30 years if it had not been for the military aid given to them by the United States, which is of course far greater than that given by that country to any other country in the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know of the preoccupation of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, with these matters. If Israel had not acquired her armaments from the United States of America, I have no doubt that she would have done so from elsewhere. I return to what I have already said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and many other noble Lords, that I believe that full compliance with Security Council Resolution 799 is the only way in which we can proceed in peace.

Schools: Children with Special Needs
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether adequate resources are available to support children with special needs attending mainstream schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is for local education authorities to decide on the level of funds to make available to mainstream schools and for those schools to decide how to deploy the budgets at their disposal.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the HMI Audit Commission of last year which states categorically that the number of statemented children has increased
220
substantially, but that the amount of money available has not increased with the number of statements which have been given for children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly agree with some findings of the Audit Commission's report, which talks not just about the escalation in the number of children being statemented, but also about the process, the way in which it was managed, and indeed the fact that some children were being considered for statements where it was not appropriate. So there is the question of the management of the process. I hope that the noble Baroness will be pleasantly surprised when the Education Bill arrives in this House because there are a number of measures which will make the situation much better. We have gone a long way as regards amendments and clauses to the Bill to make sure that moneys are safeguarded for the purpose of serving the needs of children with special needs.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most mentally handicapped children are unable to keep pace with other children in mainstream schools and that sometimes they delay the progress of the other children and the teaching in those schools? Does she agree that public money would be much better spent by keeping mentally handicapped children in special schools where they are more suited and where they cannot hold up progress as in mainstream schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that this is a subject about which my noble friend feels very strongly. I can agree with him to the degree that the provision made for a child with mental handicap should be appropriate to needs. It will be important to keep a balance of provision that deals with those children in separate units or establishments, but for some children with special educational needs who have mental handicap, the provision may be more appropriate in mainstream schooling. Where that can be done appropriately and effectively then it should be.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage schools to opt out of the state system, who will provide the money for opted-out schools to take in statemented children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the funding for LEA-maintained schools is replicated in the funding for grant-maintained schools. They have additional money to reflect their additional responsibilities: that comes from money held back at the centre by local authorities. The noble Lord makes an important point about how statemented children are funded. The responsibility will be with the local education authority and, for that purpose, the money will remain with the local education authority. Therefore, the money will follow the statemented child whether the child is in a grant-maintained, an LEA-maintained or, in some cases, an independent school.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extreme degree of anxiety felt by large

221
numbers of people (and particularly by parents of children who are not doing well at school) about children in mainstream schools who do not have statements but who are in need of special arrangements? Is she also aware of the fear that as more and more schools seek grant-maintained status they may simply not make provision for those children if the money for them remains with the local education authority? Perhaps the Minister is aware that there is a great deal of confusion in people's minds about where the money for non-statemented children in maintained schools is coming from.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. The local education authorities will be responsible for providing for children with special needs. Some of that provision will be fed into the formula for schools. As the noble Baroness knows—and was responsible for saying—there were 20 per cent. of children with special needs over and above the norm and 18 per cent. of those were in mainstream education. That will be built into he formula, and whatever is built into the formula for an LEA-maintained school will be replicated for grant-maintained schools. The encouraging sign is that a survey of the first 100 or so grant-maintained schools has found that not only are they keeping pace with their obligation to serve the needs of children with special needs but that they are even going beyond that and are totally fulfilling their obligation to meet the needs of all their children, including those with special needs.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if a child is statemented and the fees for the place which the psychiatrist, psychologist or teacher wants the child to attend are expensive and if the city treasurer says that they cannot be afforded, what is the position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an interesting question with a complicated answer. If, after going through all the due processes under the new Act—not as the situation is at present—all the people who are party to the decision (first, about the diagnosis of the child's problem and, secondly, about the child's placement) agree, the placement will have to be funded. As my noble friend knows, sometimes that is an expensive provision within an independent institution. Indeed, it is an expensive provision within an LEA institution. Where there is a dispute, there will be a tribunal to come to an agreement. When the placement is finally determined it is very important that the resources to make proper provision are made available.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, could the Minister—
Lord Rix: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that the House will want to hear both noble Lords. I believe that the noble Lord at the Front Bench was first in the queue.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, can the Minister explain once again the attitude of Her
222
Majesty's Government towards the integration of children with special needs into mainstream education, given that Mr Eric Forth said in Committee on the Education Bill last week:
"I am uneasy about attempts to try to put ever more children with statements into mainstream education provision just for the sake of it".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 26/1/93; col. 1100.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the attitude of the Government is to make appropriate provision for the needs of all children. Therefore, if it is appropriate for the children—and the presumption is in favour of integration if that is at all possible—there will be integration. However, where it is not appropriate I have to go along with my noble friend and say that the needs of the child must be absolutely paramount in these matters.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that increasing numbers of children with special needs are being returned from mainstream schools to special schools because of lack of facilities in the mainstream schools? We can provide hard evidence to this effect. What plans does her department have to look into this rather sad and sorry state of affairs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not aware of it being a substantial problem. At the moment, it is an imperfect system, as the noble Lord knows. The Bill that will be introduced into this House in a very short time will address these very points. The important point is that there will be a duty on the local authority to make provision and an obligation—so long as all the due processes are gone through—on the institution, whether it is a grant-maintained or an LEA-maintained school, to accept the child. They cannot bounce the young pupil around from school to school on a whim or simply because they do not want to educate that child. I believe that the noble Lord's particular concern will be addressed by the new Bill.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the noble Baroness has always been very reassuring personally on this issue and has given assurances to the House. How does she propose to see her will carried out in the case of schools which have to act as hosts to children with very special needs, but which do not have any prospect whatever of obtaining those resources from current allocations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when a placement is being made for a child with special needs, the considerations must be not only the needs of the child and the appropriate provision for the child but the optimum and most effective use of resources. That might be a matter for the local education authority. It might be a matter for the individual establishment. In other words, it becomes a key factor in whether a child is placed in a particular establishment. One must also guard against a particular school being overburdened with too many problems, thus making it impossible for that school to serve the needs of the children effectively. So this is an interesting debate and one which is being considered at the moment. The funding for such matters is very complex. We want a sensitive enough formula for funding special needs provision

223
but, at the end of the day, we want to get as close to providing appropriate provision at a cost that makes sense both to the authority and to the establishment making the provision.

Telephone Calls: Interceptions
2.57 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ask the Commissioner, under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, to investigate and report on allegations that there has been involvement of government agencies in the interception of telephone calls of members of the Royal Family.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Commissioner is independent and does not act on the instruction of Ministers. The security and intelligence agencies were not involved in any way in the interception of telephone calls of the Royal Family.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he recognise that these allegations are very serious and widespread and that denials by the Government are, sadly, not enough because all too often in such matters the public regard Ministers as either dupes or liars?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, that may not be the opinion of Members of your Lordships' House but it is, I fear, the opinion of many people in the country. Does my noble friend agree that the reason for setting up the 1985 arrangements for the judiciary to investigate such allegations was, in the words of Lord Justice Lloyd in his last report:
"to reassure members of the public that interception of communications is serving an important public objective, and that it is not being abused by the Government, the police or anybody else"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I accept that these allegations are serious. They were fuelled by unfounded reports in the press. When my noble friend says that some people regard Ministers as "either dupes or liars", I can only say that I hope that that is a minimum of people. Certainly in this case it has no application whatever. I can tell my noble friend that the reason that this was done correctly is that no warrant was issued. Had a warrant been issued, it would have been illegal. The only basis for the issue of a warrant is that it is necessary in the interests of national security or because the information could not be obtained by other means. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has categorical assurances from the heads of agencies that they were not involved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that the Government have no power to instruct the Commissioner to undertake an investigation, but will
224
the Minister say whether any employees of government agencies have been questioned on this matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has received assurances, which he has questioned, from the heads of agencies that there has been no involvement by the agencies.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in the course of allegations about this matter it has been suggested that GCHQ could intercept calls independent of any warrant signed by Secretaries of State. If that is so I should know about it, but as a matter of fact I do not. Is that the position? If by chance it is so, what is the purpose of the system of warrants?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, GCHQ has certain responsibilities for attending to transmission services from overseas, as the noble Lord knows. I can assure him that GCHQ has not been involved in the interception of the telephone calls of the Royal Family.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister did not hear my first question. I did not ask whether the Government had been given assurances; I asked whether, as a matter of fact, any employees of government agencies had been questioned on this matter. If he does not have the answer to that question available, which I would understand, will he be good enough to write to me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, as I have tried to explain before, that the Prime Minister has had the assurances from the heads of his departments. The noble Lord wags his head, but if the Prime Minister cannot accept an assurance from heads of departments, the organisation must be very badly run.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again, but the Minister's answer to me, while helpful up to a point, contained a certain ambiguity about GCHQ's position. Can GCHQ intercept calls outside the system of warrants?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would not be appropriate to go into all the details upon which GCHQ operates.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no. It would not be appropriate to go into that matter. Interception can be done only with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is done when it is necessary in the interests of national security and when the information cannot be obtained by other means. That applies to whoever it is who intercepts.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House accept that the security services and GCHQ would not indulge in such an illegal activity; but is it not possible that an employee in one of those agencies may, illicitly and without the knowledge of his superiors, have indulged in such an activity, as was the case with Mr. Peter Wright?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course it is always possible for anyone to cheat, and where that cheating is done it is a criminal offence. If anyone thinks that his telephone has been tapped he has the right to complain to the police, because it is a criminal offence, or to the tribunal, to ask for it to be investigated. Of course, anyone can cheat, but my information is, and I have no reason to doubt it, that heads of department have investigated their own departments carefully and clearly, and there has been no intervention.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, of course I accept my noble friend's assurance, but does he at least agree that it would be appropriate and desirable, even though he has no power to direct the Commissioner, for the new Commissioner, Lord Justice Bingham, to investigate the allegations to reassure those members of the public who may not be reassured by government statements?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is up to the Commissioner, Lord Justice Bingham, to decide what matters he wishes to look into. I remind my noble friend, as he quoted the report of Lord Justice Lloyd, that in it Lord Justice Lloyd said:
"From the start I have been impressed by the determination of the agencies not only to obey the letter of the law, but also the spirit".
He goes on to say:
"I am satisfied that the system is working as intended by Parliament, and is working well".

Scottish Housing Associations: Ethnic Minorities
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 is being observed by Scottish Homes and, in particular, whether Her Majesty's Government consider that proper resources are being made available to housing associations run by members of ethnic minorities.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Scottish Homes is obliged by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 to observe Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 in the same way as local authorities. Members of ethnic minorities are involved in the running of a few housing associations in Scotland, but Scottish Homes has to date received no applications for registration from representatives of ethnic minorities wishing to run associations exclusively for the benefit of people from ethnic minorities. Associations generally have access to considerable resources from Scottish Homes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But the Question reflects some anxiety among ethnic minorities as to whether they are obtaining a fair share of the accommodation available through local associations. What percentage of tenancies of Scottish housing associations have been given to members of ethnic minorities?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness any figures. I can say only that representatives of ethnic minorities are participating in the committees of a number of housing associations in Scotland. My understanding is that in Glasgow there may be a number of people within the ethnic minorities who as a result of the refurbishment of much of the property there moved out of the city but are now anxious to return to the city centre. In future years there may be some need to see more housing associations which are specifically directed towards the needs of the ethnic minorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that, if the English are not counted, the largest ethnic minority in Scotland is Pakistani. Is he aware of any complaints from Pakistanis about connections with housing associations or Scottish Homes? I have an interest as patron in chief of the Scottish Pakistani Association.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not anxious to enter into the delicate question of the definition of ethnicity, but I can say to my noble friend, with his interest in the Pakistani community in Scotland, that I am not aware of any problems with regard to housing associations affecting that ethnic minority.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister's replies so far have been helpful. What is the difference in the attitude of housing associations towards the funding for ethnic communities in England and in Scotland? I understand that there is a belief in Scotland—it may be largely anecdotal—that in England the families in the ethnic communities and their population tend to be much larger and therefore they started their ethnic housing earlier. The feeling is that the Scottish ethnic population is still not large enough. Things are changing. The Minister spoke about members of the ethnic communities returning to the city. Perhaps the idea of providing more funding for ethnic housing in Scotland should be looked at again.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware that south of the Border the Housing Corporation commits some 9 per cent. of its development budget to ethnic minority housing and another 9 per cent. is for housing for ethnic minorities by mainstream associations. There is no such specific ring-fencing in Scotland because, as yet, there have been no applications by such groups. However, Scottish Homes is at present carrying out a review of its policy with regard to ethnic minorities which will be concluded by the early summer. This issue will of course be part of the review.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have passed the 30th minute—
Lord Hughes: My Lords, there are four minutes of the Question left.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the device indicates that the 31st minute has passed.
After the debate on the funding of charities and voluntary organisations by local authorities and before the debate on legal aid, my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on army manpower that is to be made in another place.
With the further leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of both debates that means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. It is worth remembering that when the seventh minute is indicated on the digital timing device, the eighth minute has commenced its existence.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may raise the matter of the 30-minute limit at Question Time. The Government Chief Whip is supposed to regulate the use of time. I was most anxious, as chairman of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, to speak on the last Question. We began our discussions on that Question with only four minutes remaining. It is impossible to do business properly if the Government Chief Whip will not do his job properly.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have a considerable amount of sympathy for the noble Lord. He had a point that he wished to make but was not able to do so. Obviously he wanted an opportunity to make his point. I understand that the rules are that after 30 minutes we are required to stop Question Time and move on. We do our best to regulate the time but sometimes it is very difficult to get it right, particularly when an important issue is raised. On behalf of the whole House I am very sorry that the noble Lord was not able to ask his question but these things happen from time to time, although we try to avoid them as often as possible.

Local Authorities: Voluntary Organisation Funding
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal rose to call attention to the opportunities for and constraints on local authorities in funding charities and voluntary organisations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, voluntary organisations have been encouraged by successive governments to take on tasks which were previously carried out by central or local government. The days of completely voluntary organisations are waning very
228
quickly. They are gradually being taken over by professional organisations. They need to be professional in order to conform with all the different Acts of Parliament, the different rules and regulations of the EC, and so on. Although there are still many hundreds of people throughout the country who do work which is completely voluntary, the administration is carried out in a truly professional way by paid people.
We can see effective local democracy taking place because local authorities are working very closely with the voluntary bodies. Local authorities and the voluntary bodies see the real needs of people because they live among those people. Therefore, they are aware of the problems and are most easily able to help.
However, that assistance can only be given if the Government clearly recognise their responsibilities and maintain active financial assistance to local authorities which can then be passed on to the voluntary bodies. Unfortunately, this Government are rigid as regards local authority budgets. Year after year we find that new kinds of words are used to describe cutbacks. Those cutbacks have a very serious local impact.
I wish that the Government would be rather more gracious and accept that in many cases local government knows more than national government about the economic situation which people face. I instigated this debate because of my involvement with three charities in Birmingham. I am not saying that Birmingham City Council is unhelpful; in fact, just the opposite. Nor am I saying that the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind, St. Basil's for the Young Homeless or the Rathbone Society, with which I am involved, are incompetent. However, whenever I visit those charities, the same subject is always raised. They say that they would like to start a project or that they have a good idea but they do not know where the money is to come from. Therefore, many of the projects which local authorities wish to undertake with the charitable organisations cannot be funded. As a result, there is no spread of new innovation.
I thought perhaps that it was only Birmingham—and I know that this Government do not like Birmingham City Council at all—which had to suffer in that way. However, since I tabled this Motion I have been inundated by letters from charities and voluntary organisations telling me about their problems and the problems of the local authorities with which they are working. I mention only a few —MENCAP, the Spastics Society, Age Concern and Relate. This problem applies not only to cities but also to rural areas. The Village Hall Forum has contacted me. With such high levels of unemployment, the work of charities and voluntary organisations increases. Unemployment can cause marriage breakdowns. I remember clearly that my mother used to say, "When the money stops coming through the door, love flies out through the window". Obviously, Relate is dealing with many such cases and it was one of the organisations which contacted me. It has an increasing workload.
Unemployment affects children in families. Families are trying to make ends meet. The children's

229
societies are being inundated with more and more work. Unemployment causes constant worry and depression so that local initiatives are taking place. Drop-in centres are being established where you can talk to people who may be sympathetic, even if you do not have a job.
Unemployment causes financial problems; for example, mounting debts and mortgage arrears. People are in arrears with their gas and electricity payments and water is cut off. The settlement organisations and the CABs have many, many requests for help. Obviously, the more help that is given, the more revenue is needed.
The achievements of those organisations are reflected by the fact that society would be poorer 'without their help. In their wisdom, or otherwise, the Government seem to perform tricks with finance. We all know that that means that less money is available. We are used to that now. Members of the Government try to bamboozle us but we recognise the truth. The loss of the Inner City Partnership money and Urban Aid, the cutbacks in Safer Cities funding and, most important, Section 11 funding, which is particularly helpful to black and ethnic minorities, have meant that local authorities are in a cleft stick. The Government are saying that they must cut back, and to make sure that they do that they use the blackmailing technique called capping.
Therefore, the voluntary bodies are told by the local authorities "Look, we have had to cut back. There is no alternative. You will have to suffer the cutbacks with us because the funding is no longer available". Therefore, with the loss of many inner city partnerships and with Urban Aid almost gone, we are finding that all charities have to employ what they call "the fundraiser" and a fund raising committee to keep many of the projects on the road.
That creates its own difficulties because capital is more easily obtained than revenue. Many trusts and people who try to raise money do not believe it to be correct to use that kind of money which should be given to them by the Government. The public are becoming more resistant to providing funds for services. Consequently, voluntary bodies are finding they cannot extend the work they wish to do.
I wish to say a few words about the national lottery. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the lottery was an initiative of the Home Office. I thought that in that case voluntary bodies would be all right. However, it now appears that the Department of National Heritage is in charge of it. I wish to place it firmly on the record that I believe the heritage of Great Britain is all of its people rather than ancestral homes and columns of stone. We should recognise that fact when discussing the funds that should be allocated to voluntary bodies.
I hope I have drawn attention to some of the problems that are facing voluntary organisations, particularly due to Government funding policies. I know many other speakers in this debate will reinforce that point. I hope the Government will not be tempted to brush aside the fine system of voluntary bodies we have in this country. Everyone admires the work of voluntary organisations and admires charitable effort.
230
For a country of our standing it would be quite wrong to brush voluntary work aside just because the Government feel they need to cut back on local authority funding. I believe they do that because they feel spiteful towards local authorities but the Minister may not agree with that point of view.
The Urban Programme needs to be improved. Perhaps it is not too late for it to be resurrected because it has certainly proved to he one of the most equitable ways forward for voluntary organisations over the past 20 years. I realise I have not spoken for the whole of my allotted time but I feel that my comments have been sufficient to encourage other speakers to reinforce the points I have made. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for introducing the debate. We thank her not only for bringing the topic to your Lordships' attention but also for having spoken with a good degree of Midlands realism, if I may say so. I am interested in the evolution of the title of the debate. I believe that originally it was something like the impact of local authority budget cuts. It has now become the opportunities for and constraints on local authorities in funding charities. I hope that that will not be taken as a signal to talk about challenges to the voluntary sector in the way that the word is often used as a euphemism for obstacles.
As regards opportunities for local authorities, many would say that the options have been reduced almost to nil because of the regime of capping expenditure. In my borough we have for many years asked residents what they would like us to raise in tax and, simultaneously, what would they like us to spend on services. That question cannot now be put because the capping regime applies to the level of expenditure.
Local authorities of all types are making severe cuts in their budgets. They may not see the present as a time of opportunity. It is not just a matter of the level of the poll tax or council tax: it is also a matter of constraints on capital expenditure. It seems to me, as one of those trying to apply democracy at a local level, that those constraints arise because central government are jealous of local power and believe that a capital base means power. It is also a question of holding out against new forms of raising finance such as bond issues. But this two and a half hour debate should not be devoted to whingeing about there not being enough money to spend locally. That may be true, but it will not take us forward. However, it is well worth reflecting that as local authorities are affected, so also are voluntary organisations.
Local authorities constitute a significant part of the grants scene. In London, of an estimated £264 million given to the voluntary sector by the 90 largest private and public sector grant makers, 60 per cent. comes from local authorities. However, those who provide services know that that is not enough and that demand far exceeds supply. At a time of growing unemployment and the development of an increasing gap between rich and poor, that is bound to be the case.

231
My local CAB service undertook a recent survey. The staff commented that nearly one in four of the CAB's clients were unemployed and one in three were receiving income support. They stated:
"You are twice as likely to have a disability if you are a CAB client".
Although borough residents living on their own make up a third of the population, one half of the CAB's clients live on their own. I mention CABs because they present perhaps one of the starkest examples of an organisation in the voluntary sector picking up the pieces when a local authority falters or perhaps fails under strain. The CABs are under extreme strain themselves, particularly, I suspect, in urban areas. CAB staff are clearly unhappy that they are unable to provide the level of service they would wish and that time and energy is absorbed not in advising but increasingly in fund raising. They, too, are suffering from reduced funding as local authority budgets diminish.
There is a danger in talking as if demands themselves do not change. Local authorities want to respond to new needs and provide for new developments. That is in the minds of local authorities when they consider calls to support new government initiatives. Homelessness is one example. In London, local authorities, through the London wide committee, provide grants of almost £9 million to 150 voluntary organisations, many of which the Government rely upon to provide services under the rough sleepers initiative led by the Department of the Environment. That is the kind of funding that is threatened.
In a different area the committee provides £3.2 million a year for the arts under joint funding arrangements with the Arts Council and the London Arts Board. Local authorities are aware of the need to undertake good housekeeping. I wonder how much there is a failure these days to attend to the good maintenance of properties and assets because that is something that can be put off. We shall all bear the penalty of that in years to come.
Not the least of new initiatives is that of community care. I am sure other speakers will refer to it. At a time when community care becomes fully operational, funding cuts to local authorities may threaten the stability of existing provision or indeed help to destroy it. The clock is against me in giving examples but I shall mention homelessness once more. As fast as the Department of the Environment may be trying to take people off the streets, the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security may be putting them back. It is no defence for the Government to say that community care legislation gives local authorities the duty to meet all the care needs in their area. The funding is not adequate to do so. Community care problems are particularly sad because so much of the strategy for that care has its origins in good working relationships between local authorities and the voluntary sector.
This debate has its foundations in local authority funding, but that is not the whole of the issue. We talk a good deal about enabling people to take their own
232
decisions and to live their own lives. I prefer the concept of empowerment in a society where the skills, the expertise and the views of each one of our citizens are important. Power should not remain in a few hands. We in our extraordinary constitutional position should be particularly aware of that.
Over the years I have become increasingly aware in local authority work not just of the difficulties of stretching every pound to make it do the work of £2 but also of decreasing job satisfaction among members, officers and those in the voluntary sector. If job satisfaction disappears so will those who are willing to do the jobs. There are real risks to the work of the voluntary sector as well as to the whole democratic process.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, it is difficult to say all that should be said in answer to the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, in introducing the Motion—which I welcome—in a mere seven minutes. Most of her speech must represent a welcome change of attitude on the Benches on which she sits compared with a more grudging attitude towards voluntary organisations and charities 10 years ago. I say that delicately, and I welcome that change of attitude because over the centuries the voluntary organisations and charities have initiated most of the services which we now regard as indispensable. They still serve that purpose because of their power of initiation and their perception of the needs of the subjects of this land.
No matter how well intentioned and how effective the public services provided by local government, most of which are very well intentioned and effective, there will always be a need for voluntary bodies and charitable organisations. That is why I for one very much welcome the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness this afternoon.
However, your Lordships should remind yourselves that a charity is not a charity if it raises all of its money from the taxpayer. The slightly grudging attitude of the noble Baroness towards the role of the fund-raiser ignores the fact that the fund-raiser represents an indispensable reality, for charities are not simply users of taxpayers' money.
That having been said, I shall also try to convince your Lordships that there are some charitable and voluntary activities which it would not be seemly for the Government to provide. I take as an example a particular interest of many noble Lords, including myself. That is the concept of preparation for parenthood—although I do not know whether or not that is practicable. Take also the concept, with which I am also deeply sympathetic, of helping parents who want help with coping with their children. I have often spoken in this House of the invaluable and effective work of a charity called Home-Start. I also pray in aid some of the services of the charities associated with children. I shall not list them because they are well known to your Lordships. They often provide services which it would not be seemly or proper for the Government to provide. Those are sensitive charitable organisations, manned and womanned—if I may

233
create a verb—by people who are not officials, do not have powers, do not have authority but are able to achieve the purposes for which they were designed.
Turning to a more politically tendentious point, I suggest, even in criticism of my own side of the House, that many problems are severe today because governments of both parties have obstructed the natural provision of services which would, via the market, have provided relief for some of the problems we see today. I instance here what I believe both sides now recognise as a grave omission in our economy, namely the provision of rented commercial housing —at every level of rent and every level of value for money. Those who have read George Orwell's notable book, Down and Out in London and Paris, will remember his lament for the loss of dosshouses—and I hope that noble Lords will not misunderstand me —in the wake of the good intentions of the planners and all of us who legislated for their abolition. That has left many people in our society worse off, with fewer options available to them, whether they are afflicted with an addiction or trying to recover from having lost their resources or their jobs.
Therefore, while I sympathise with the Motion of the noble Baroness, I believe that we have to face the problem of where extra money for charities and voluntary organisations from local authorities would come from. There are problems associated with just putting up public spending. There is the problem of the threshold for taxation, which both parties in their times in government have extended downwards so that even at poverty levels one is burdened by high levels of personal taxation. That demotivates the people concerned and raises all the traps of which we are aware—the poverty trap and the "why work?" syndrome.
It is not possible, as the noble Baroness implied, for the Government simply to provide more public money without considering where that money would come from. There is the burden of raising taxation at all levels of income and the danger of excessive government borrowing. I therefore draw the conclusion from the Motion that there is indeed a role for local authorities. I do not envy their decision-makers the job of choosing between the myriads of worthy charitable causes which approach them. There is a duty on local authorities to search thoroughly for economies which can be made without damaging the effectiveness of the services they provide to their constituents. Perhaps some of those savings could be transferred to the charities to do jobs which need to be done or which they can do better than the public services. I support the Motion, subject to those comments.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, for initiating this debate. It is very timely as we draw near to April, when the National Health Service and Community Care Act becomes operational. The voluntary sector is a key partner in the provision of community care with local authorities.
234
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I served on the Phoenix House board. We witnessed at first hand the tremendous anxiety of all those concerned with organisations which provide residential drug rehabilitation services when they realised that Department of Social Security funds would be transferred to local authorities. During the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill through your Lordships' House I moved an amendment, which was supported from all sides of the House, to ring fence money for residential services for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The Minister then announced the good news that that would be done in another place. There was great relief among all the providers of those services because they knew only too well that drug and alcohol services were likely to land at the bottom of the pile of the services provided by local authorities.
To establish a drug rehabilitation residential home like one of the Phoenix House centres is a most difficult task. Nobody wants it in their locality, yet if those people are to be rehabilitated, to become responsible members of society and given a chance to kick a disastrous habit, that is the only salvation. Accordingly, there was great disappointment and despair among providers when the Minister announced that those at-risk rehabilitation services would not be ring fenced but would be lumped in with all the other vital services provided by local authorities. Does the Minister believe that they will survive the contract culture?
St. Anne's detoxification centre in Leeds provides a crisis service. Last year I visited police cells here in London. The doctor on duty said that he needed detoxification centres like the one in Leeds as an alternative to prison. Are the Government going to allow all those services to disappear? I heard last week that St. Anne's is at risk.
Are charities losing out? I heard that last year £4 billion was given to charity, nearly half of it in response to collections, advertisements and appeals. But charities were denied £500 million because people did not take advantage of tax incentives. If that is so, will the Government help to give some directives and publicity to the matter?
This country has an amazing number of charities and voluntary organisations. People's expectations have risen. Voluntary agencies have become more efficient and professional. With the Charities Act, trustees have become worried about their liabilities. With so much change and financial constraint on local authorities, many charity workers have been under immense stress, with the threat of charities closing down.
I have received letters from users of services provided for disabled people which state that these people no longer receive a good service because key members of staff have been made redundant. Because disability spans so many government departments, my letters often bounce between departments.
I have just received an appeal letter asking for donations to build and furbish flats for homeless young people in Ripon, a small city in Yorkshire. Many people across the country are most concerned about so many homeless young people. My first

235
reaction was this. Should not local authorities be providing such accommodation? I ask the Minister —he is young with lots of energy—for his thoughts on a scheme that I should like to see developed. If local people provide homes for young people who receive social support on which to live, could those young people give some voluntary service until they manage to obtain a paid job? If they do not work, many young people get into a very bad habit of staying in bed all day, getting up to drink in pubs or clubs at night. They are at risk with the rise in illicit drug-taking and that goes hand in hand with the increase in crime. In the past two years there has been a 46 per cent. increase in crime in North Yorkshire. Surely we cannot allow this appalling situation to continue.
I hope that, as 1993 proceeds, local authority managers will realise that there has to be joint co-operation between themselves, health workers and voluntary agencies if the people in need of services are to be helped. Even with voluntary agencies, one has paid staff. Volunteers are often unpaid. Staff have to work with each other. It is not always easy. There has to be mutual respect for each other.
Last week I visited the Griffin Project. That is Turning Point's project for drug users with HIV and AIDS-related illnesses. It is closely integrated with other relevant services to ensure high quality comprehensive care for clients. The service network includes hospital in-patient and out-patient units, home support services, DDUs, local authority services and other non-statutory voluntary agencies. It is a small project but it is a good example of the importance of co-operation between agencies.
The Government have announced that drug and alcohol services will be monitored and that there will be a "fast track system". Perhaps I may ask the Minister what is meant by "fast track". If it speeds up the system, then the services for severely disabled people, who may be blocking beds in hospitals because their homes need adaptation, also need a fast track system.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Fisher for raising a matter which directly affects the lives of millions of our citizens. Charities are in deep trouble these days. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, reflected on the role of people on this side of the House who have given a lifetime of service to charity. He was a Member of a Government who were firmly in support of a Prime Minister who had the audacity to say that there was no such thing as society. I believe that we are entitled to complain about that observation. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect upon that.
The gravamen of the charge that we make today about the Government is that more and more during their lifetime they have sought to replace the role of statutory bodies, first, by moving issues from central government to local government, and then by transferring responsibilities from local government to charities and asking local government to finance the
236
charities. We now have this madcap scheme of denying local government the money with which it can support those absolutely essential charities.
Charity is a proper objective of all of us. I am tempted to say to the House that the Apostle Paul knew a thing or two about this Government when 2,000 years ago he said, "Charity suffereth long". Fortunately he concluded by saying that charities endure. Those of us connected with charities are determined that they will endure, despite all the difficulties. I am sometimes tempted to believe that the Government take comfort from that fact.
It is not just central and local government. The Government's economic policy has laid low charities. At present I head a charity—I must be crazy—which is seeking to raise £1 million for a cancer research project in Birmingham. Time and again the great firms in Birmingham write to me saying, "We shall give you what we can but it is nothing like what we would previously have given". We then turn to the public, bless them, who are doing their best. But with more than 3 million people out of work and a lot more on short time, they cannot make up the missing amounts. I therefore hope that at the end of the debate the Government will reconsider the role of charities in society.
As a dedicated volunteer in a charity, I fully accept that money given to charity by a local authority is likely to produce a much greater return for society than if the statutory body undertook the work itself; and I am a great believer in statutory bodies. But the Government have got themselves into a terrible mess.
I seek to give some illustrations in the short time available. We have already referred to a new disaster of gigantic proportion which now faces us as a result of the Government replacing the Inner City Partnership with the new Urban Programme. Under that programme money can be spent only on capital projects. Have the Government not yet learnt that every capital project has a revenue consequence? Where on earth is the revenue money coming from?
I am attached to St. Basil's, as is my noble friend Lady Fisher. That organisation looks after 154 homeless men and women. I am a member of the committee of the Trinity Centre, Bordesley, which has 113 single homeless men. We take those people off the streets. They have all been financed by the Inner City Partnership. That money is stopping. Will the Government tell us where the money will now come from? Alternatively, will they be happy if we cease trying to do our duty, and cease trying to help them, leaving those people at the risk of going back on to the streets? That is the problem we face.
We then have the crazy system by which European funding ceases to be available to many charities because of such actions. Perhaps I may take one illustration. The Women's Video Training Workshop in Birmingham will now lose its city council funding because it has lost its partnership funding. In consequence it will lose its European funding. Have the Government thought the matter through? One cannot believe that they have.
The Birmingham Voluntary Service Council tells me that as a result of that change the following

237
schemes are at risk: 50 child care day schemes, money advice schemes, residential and day care schemes, citizens advice bureaux, debt management schemes and drug rehabilitation schemes. All are at risk as a result of the change. The Minister appears amused. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will tell us in a more serious vein where that money will come from if not from the Inner City Partnership. Where does he expect the Birmingham City Council or the charities doing all the work on behalf of society to find the money? And it is not just the charities in the accepted sense and the voluntary societies; what about the sports bodies, which are also badly affected?
I wish to refer to the vexed question of discretionary rate relief which is a serious matter. I could give the House a long list of local authorities which are now writing to charitable bodies. Only this morning I received a copy of a letter from the Malvern Hills District Council to one of its cricket clubs, telling the club that the council has had to decide that all its discretionary rate relief for sports bodies—28 in Malvern alone—will have to cease in order to save £39,000. Most of the bodies will now have to find, on top of everything else, between £800 and £1,000. They are doing good work, attracting young people and getting them engaged in their enthusiasm for sport.
The Rugby Football Union has written to us, as has the Central Council of Physical Recreation, about Solihull Council and the Camp Hill Football Club, which attracts 200 youngsters to play football every Sunday morning. Although it is Conservative, Solihull Council happens to have a good record in sports provision. I know that it is driven to take such action by the financial situation in which it finds itself.
I conclude, appropriately, with the fact that Manchester—the nation's Olympic-bid city—has had to decide that, notwithstanding that it wishes to build 24 Olympic sports facilities, it must close swimming pools and sports halls because it can no longer afford to make its contribution to sport in the community.
I very much hope that the Government will realise the parlous situation they are putting society in as a result of the difficulties they have created for charities. I hope that they will find and introduce a new philosophy which will enable charities effectively to do the job in the community which I can assure the House that this side of the Chamber endorses just as much as the other side.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was good enough to reassure us that the party opposite, to which he belongs, is keen on charities and local voluntary organisations. However, I remind him that that was not always so. In the days when I was very interested, both as a junior Minister and later as a Back-Bencher, in civil defence and civil preparedness, the party opposite were not encouraging towards local volunteers. As the late Sir Winston Churchill used to say, the things that unite us are greater than those that divide us. Along with my noble friend Lord Joseph, I rejoice that both sides of the House are on the side of charities and volunteers.
238
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was right when she said that people's expectations of local authorities have risen. Let us face it: people expect local authorities to give ever increasing financial support to more and more good causes every year when local authorities themselves must necessarily, and in the national interest, have their spending limited. It would be an irresponsible government — whether Labour in the past or Conservative now and, I hope, for a long time to come—that decided that despite the national economic interest and the prevention of inflation we could allow local authorities to spend unlimited sums on everything.
We are faced with the fact that decisions on many different matters of expenditure in detail rest with local councils and not with your Lordships—nor with Members of another place. It is best left to local authorities, with their knowledge of local circumstances, to decide which cause to give greatest support. The needs of causes vary from county to county and from year to year.
Local authorities have done exceedingly well in exercising their discretion—for example, in protecting the heritage —not merely by listing ancient buildings effectively but also in providing grants towards their restoration. That is within my own knowledge and experience in East Anglia and has enabled English Heritage to reduce some of its commitments to the benefit of the taxpayer.
Another example is village halls. In the past Cambridgeshire County Council and the former Huntingdonshire County Council did extraordinarily well in helping to provide halls for our villages. So much so that in the last financial year Cambridgeshire County Council did not find it necessary to provide any grant at all for a village hall or community centre. It had enough. Bedfordshire County Council, which did nothing in that respect in the last financial year, is this year reinstating the grant programme because it finds that there is a need. That is how it should be —varying from time to time. One cannot get away from that.
As to charities in general, many have suffered financially through the recession. We hope that things will improve through the taxation help which charities now receive and which they have received increasingly from Budgets during the past 10 years. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister made a big concession with regard to gift aid sums which have enabled charities to get in more money. His successor has brought about a good change: he reduced the original £800 to £400. That is a tax concession from which charities are benefiting. I do not say that it reduces the demands on local authorities; it does not. But at least it is some consolation.
I am especially involved with the mentally handicapped. MENCAP is one of our largest and most important charities. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will not be offended if I call him my noble friend. I am glad that he will be speaking later so I need not take up time on the subject.
The most serious social problem with which local authorities, especially urban authorities, have to deal

239
is homelessness. All local authorities have some homes and hostels. Alas, a number of homeless people—this has been the experience in London—refuse to live in them. They prefer to have the cardboard shacks that they have built for themselves in open spaces. One shack in Lincolns Inn Fields last year had a "To let" notice on it. We should realise that a little persuasion is needed to help local authorities overcome homelessness. Where there is not enough local authority accommodation for the homeless I suggest that local authorities regard it as the highest priority of all. There is no cause more important, more touching, than homelessness. We should be thankful when local authorities deal with it, and we should encourage them to do so.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, many speakers have referred to the development of partnerships between voluntary organisations and local authorities. Partnership has much to offer in terms of service to the community. However, the partnership must be genuine. It must not be used as a method of imposing on voluntary organisations burdens which they cannot carry and cannot be expected to carry.
I want to refer particularly to child care and family support services. I shall perhaps concentrate on the National Children's Homes, because that is the association I know best. However, I know that what I shall say is also applicable to such bodies as Barnardo's and the Children's Society. An especially valuable feature of the voluntary charities working for children has been the pioneering of new and more appropriate ways of working with children, young people and families in need. Recent examples include the development of independence training, intermediate treatment, alternatives to prison for young offenders, family conciliation services and treatment centres for sexually abused children. It is often easier for voluntary organisations than it is for local authorities to pioneer new approaches by the use of voluntary funds until the stage is reached when they can win support from local authorities and local authorities can become the main providers.
Now, however, there is a serious threat to innovative work of this kind. It is in danger because of the need to use voluntary funds to sustain services where one could reasonably expect local authorities to be the main providers. Partnership is certainly nothing new for the NCH. For many years we have been using voluntary funds to provide purpose-built or adapted buildings and also to provide trained professional staff while the local authority finances the revenue costs. In that way last year we turned £11 million of voluntary income into £40 million of expenditure on social provision. The value which local authorities have attached to partnership arrangements with the NCH and other voluntary organisations is shown by the fact that local authority funding for the NCH last year increased significantly, even though the times were difficult. But also last year we closed down 25 projects. Some had come to the end of their natural life and
240
some had failed to reach the necessary levels of performance; but too many projects had to be closed, in spite of the continuing and acknowledged need for their services, because of the withdrawal of local authority funding. In addition we failed in many attempts to open projects to meet needs which were known to us and acknowledged by local authorities. Many were in deprived areas where we concentrate our main efforts.
In Salford, for example, because of the withdrawal of funding we had to close a project providing programmes as a replacement to custody for juvenile offenders aged 14 to 16 years. The project had been welcomed and was valued by the local authority; nevertheless, it had to withdraw its funds. This is happening more and more.
Another area to which I should like to refer in the limited time available is the over-rapid contraction of residential children's homes and special schools. Those are subjects with which your Lordships will be familiar. We all agree that we shall need to form a strategy of developing care and support in the community. That enables a contraction of residential provision to take place. But the contraction which is taking place is far too precipitate.
Under the pressure to cut expenditure, one of the few easy and fairly quick savings that a social services department can make is to withdraw a child from a voluntary home or decide not to place one. The child is returned home or stays there inappropriately. Senior social services staff acknowledge privately that it is lack of finance which leads to these decisions rather than an assessment of the child's needs and the child's best interests. In the past eight years the NCH has closed nearly 40 residential homes, including residential special schools. That has meant a loss of nearly 1,400 places. Some of the closures would have taken place in any event, but in a slower and more orderly way. And of course they should have been accompanied by alternative plans for care in the community.
Under pressure from the withdrawal of placements by local authorities the NCH has had to divert scarce funds to propping up or closing projects that should have been sustained by local authority funds, or perhaps closed more slowly over a longer time. At the same time there is no incentive for a voluntary organisation to pioneer if it is clear that funds will not in future be available to implement projects which are based on the outcome of often very costly, albeit successful, experiments. There is no point in a voluntary organisation using scarce resources to prime the pump if the well of local authority resources is going to run dry. In any event, as my noble friend Lady Fisher, to whom we are all indebted today, has said, the providers of voluntary funds, trusts, business sources and personal givers, are increasingly reluctant to provide money for what they believe state agencies should be doing.
The Government's attempt to shift away from local authorities and on to voluntary organisations a bigger part of responsibility for social welfare will reduce not

241
only the quantity but also the future quality of care for children, young people and families in need and at risk.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, there has been much unanimity among the speeches today, many of which have been excellent, about the importance of this particular issue—that is, the work that was being done and was growing very strongly, with the help of local authorities, to deal with those people in varying degrees of unfortunateness. However, the trouble is that nobody except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has tried to say anything about who is going to pay for the care which is needed. I am not going to say anything about that either: I will only say this, that of the various emergencies presented to the Government at the moment almost the most serious is the fact that everything good in the way of charitable work from top to bottom is decreasing. It is almost incredible that that should be so, but it is. It is not necessary for me to give examples, because so many have already been given.
The point I wish to underline, and which I believe is behind what everybody has said, is that this is not a question of wondering why the Government are so mean. It is a question of saying to the Government, "We all know that the whole state of the nation, particularly at the lower level, is in a desperately difficult situation and nobody knows quite how to deal with it". Some things are absolutely certain. First of all, wrong behaviour derives from childhood and therefore the first thing is to look at families.
What is happening to those charities or local organisations that are looking after families and helping to give advice to them and look after them? I will give one instance, which I happen to know very well. It is only a small one but it is worth giving. I refer to the family service units. I once served with them. They take, mostly from local authorities, those families who have got themselves into difficulties with children and are not getting out of those difficulties. They have an enormous amount of success with very detailed work. Ten years ago they had 23 units and now they have 20, of which half are facing cuts. This is the wrong way round. That particular example—and there are dozens of others of the same kind—is dealing with the real issue. It is not a question of economy, or anything else, but a question of "must be done".
The Government must think again very carefully. I wish to say that this is not really a political debate because I believe that both the Labour Party and my own party would find getting enough money to do this properly just as difficult as the Government do. Therefore, although I have a political point I should like to make before long, that is not the main one.
I draw attention to another point. Nobody has spoken about the local authorities themselves and so I took the trouble to talk to my own local authority, which on the whole is a jolly good one and really tries to do its best. I told members of the authority that I was going to speak in this debate and asked for their
242
views. Roughly speaking, the local authority acknowledges a very clear regional expectation that it should develop and enable the independent sector to provide more services. It is positively anxious to do so. But it finds that the contract culture—substituting detailed contracts for the old method of a limited subsidy for a particular purpose—works against the smaller enterprises; and voluntary organisations tend to be lightly staffed and not particularly well equipped for drawing up rules and accepting contracts. Therefore, they tend to be squeezed; and the local authority, which cannot do all the things it wants to do, is apt to squeeze them out first. It is very sorry about that.
The authority also gave me an instance of one splendid scheme. It had a good empty hall and a voluntary body which had some money and volunteers. It intended to set up, in a densely crowded and poor area, a place for young people's recreation. The scheme had to be dropped. The authority could not do it. At the same time I was told of a similar case where Brighton, again with an existing local charity, was well advanced in establishing a scheme relating to drug abuse, and similar problems, which it thought eventually could be self-supporting. Unfortunately, it had to be dropped because there was insufficient money. That is happening all over the country. I gave two instances; one from the rich South and probably a better one from the poorer North. While people regard such schemes as projects which they can choose whether or not to implement, we are not moving in the right direction at all.
As an example, I take something that is very near to my heart, mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The arts are part of all this local subsidising. Every single local subsidy towards the arts is decreasing. In 1972 all limits were lifted; the local authorities were allowed to do what they liked but everything was lifted out. I have said all that I shall say on that matter, but I should like to make one political point. I want to stop Ministers in this Government, or the next Government, getting up and saying: "I think this is an absolutely splendid scheme; I am absolutely behind you; I shall do everything I can to help you", when round the corner in the next department the local authorities that are supposed to be implementing the scheme are being rate-capped. It simply will not do. Ministers must say: "I don't think this has the priority which I can afford to give". It is no good approving projects while at the same time cutting them at the other end. I have made only a brief contribution, but I think the debate has been a very good one.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has given us a valuable opportunity to look again at the relationship between voluntary societies and charities on the one hand and the Government and local authorities on the other. We are very grateful to her.
In my experience, successive governments have been fulsome in their praise for the work of voluntary bodies—no doubt sincerely so. I think that all those

243
connected with voluntary work, including all who have contributed with great wisdom this afternoon, would feel that such praise was highly justified. But at the same time they might be convinced that its main justification is precisely the voluntary nature of the services provided.
Local and central government give support in many instances to voluntary organisations. I believe that it is very often right to do so. But I believe that there are dangers implicit in this involvement. There are grave dangers if voluntary bodies become too dependent on such funding. There is a great deal that central government can do in the field of taxation. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the activities of the Charities Tax Reform Group, which I hope will soon be rewarded by success. But this is certainly neither the place nor the opportunity for such a discussion, which would carry us a good deal wide of the noble Baroness's Motion. But funding is the subject of the Motion.
In my view, funding can be provided either by government or local authorities in more than one way. Frankly, the prospect of direct financing on a very extensive scale by local authorities gives me some cause for alarm. Apart from all the other difficulties, local authorities have to undertake a rather delicate examination and make rather controversial judgments between the merits of different voluntary organisations. Many decisions, I suggest, may be swayed by particularly enthusiastic experts or by a momentary popularity with the local electorate, which, like most electorates, may rapidly come to change its collective mind.
Certainly in some cases—possibly in a great many cases—support may remain constant. But in others, the decision to provide direct financial help may at any time be quickly swept away by the wind of change. Frankly, as every voluntary organisation would agree, funding that is changeable is of very little use to charities.
I suggested earlier that there was already in existence a possibly more reliable means of funding voluntary bodies by both local and central authorities. It is quite easy to explain. It takes the form which has recently been made more familiar by changes in the National Health Service and consists of the choices which local authorities in particular have to make of the services that they want to procure from those who provide them.
I have been closely connected for a number of years with a certain foundation which provides a wide range of services from holidays for the very severely disabled to vocational training for those who need it. All those services cost money to provide and need careful planning. But in this case, it is up to the foundation in question to make sure that it provides services for which a demand exists and that the buyers of those services receive full value for what they spend. That involves local authorities in a choice very different from a possibly capricious priority which they must assign to a charity with momentary or exceptional glamour. That is the choice of a buyer under
244
obligation to purchase certain services and consequently keen to discover where he may do so most effectively. Not only, in my opinion, will the purchaser/provider relationship point to the proper direction of local authority support; it will also help local authorities to get the services that they need and must have in a more economical way.
I should like to give one example of what I mean. The county of Surrey (where my foundation happens to be based) is, like other local authorities, required to provide a range of information for disabled people. Surrey discharges that obligation by buying the service at what I think is a reasonable cost from the information service which the foundation set up a few years ago. I suggest very seriously to your Lordships that the purchase of that service produces a much more satisfactory result for ratepayers in Surrey than an attempt by the local authority to provide it in any other way.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal for introducing the debate. Like her, I am extremely concerned about the overall level of funding for voluntary sector agencies and charities throughout the country. I too have received many letters and briefings from voluntary organisations and have been extraordinarily alarmed to see how well-established, prominent organisations, which have offered services for many years, are now under serious threat of their funding. For example, I find it disturbing to be told in a letter from the director of Relate that he expects his grant to be cut in real terms by £25,000 this year.
However, as well as expressing anxiety about the absolute sums involved, I should like also to call attention to the new methods of funding the voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, explained some positive features but I believe that, in the words of the Motion, the change from grant giving to contracting creates more constraints upon, than opportunities for, effective voluntary work.
The intended purpose of the switch to contracting —again, the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, drew attention to this—was both to bring the voluntary bodies and charities into the early stages of planning and developing local services and to put the finances of those agencies on a more secure footing. However, so far there seems to be little evidence of early consultation between the statutory and voluntary sectors about community care plans. Many voluntary agencies to which I have spoken report that they are being offered only one-year contracts with local authorities which makes it as difficult as it ever has been to plan confidently for the future.
In 1990, when the system was introduced, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations wrote:
"Whilst contracting provides an opportunity to put voluntary organisations' relationships with the statutory sector onto a clearer footing, there will be problems in ensuring that small organisations survive, that the infrastructure required to ensure that the voluntary sector functions in an effective and efficient way is adequately developed, and that the role of the voluntary sector functions in an effective and efficient way is adequately developed, and that the role of the voluntary sector does not become distorted through placing too much emphasis on

245
service delivery and not enough on campaigning and promoting the principles which need to underpin service delivery".
It may be that lack of time in the last couple of years and inexperience in working the system has meant that there have been difficulties. If one wants to be optimistic and not sceptical, it may be that the system will work theoretically as intended. However, the initial anxieties expressed by the NCVO about the disadvantages of the contracting system now seem to be the practical reality.
The basic problem seems to be the question of service delivery, a subject on which my noble friend Lord Murray touched. As your Lordships will be aware, in the purchaser-provider split—we are now talking about small voluntary agencies—providers are required to demonstrate their ability to deliver specific, essential, quantifiable services which are then purchased under a contract. Many voluntary organisations and charities which are doing enormously valuable work are not primarily service providers. They may be community groups designed to support neighbourhood projects or offer support to individual organisations. They may be advocates or pressure groups. They may be umbrella bodies whose aim is to facilitate and promote the activities of those who work with them.
Even in instances where they are primarily service deliverers in the strict meaning of the new contracting culture, voluntary bodies usually have other functions and therefore other costs which cannot be legitimately included in a service contract. For example, most organisations are involved in development work and often in training and those activities cannot be included in the strict service contract. In the development area, for example, voluntary organisations have expressed alarm to me about the loss of those parts of the urban programme funding which have often been used for creating and piloting new and innovative projects, particularly those concerned with traditionally "difficult" areas of social policy. For example, Age Concern had recently intended to develop a project with ethnic minority pensioners in the North of England, but it has had to be dropped because urban programme funding has gone. I fear that it will be the same story for other imaginative new schemes.
As regards local authority decisions, there is apprehension among voluntary sector workers about their funding because those decisions now rest in the contract system with officers, not members. Several agencies have expressed fears that officials may be less imaginative or adventurous than local authority members who might have supported an untried project under the old grant scheme. They worry that officials will stick rigidly to service-based purchasing from well-established bodies.
Perhaps I may take a practical example from a field that I know well, the AIDS voluntary sector. Most local AIDS helplines and support groups in this country grew from the energetic action of individual volunteers. Individuals saw a local need and they acted. Organisational development was often haphazard and unplanned, but effective organizations
246
have grown out of a combination of offering practical care, providing advocacy of an unpopular cause and carrying out public education work.
It is hard to see how these kinds of extremely valuable and dynamic voluntary sector responses, which may be needed to deal with a new problem, could be accommodated in a service contract culture. However benign the local authority, those kinds of spontaneous community developments, which have been centrally important, not just in the AIDS field, but in drug misuse, domestic violence and homelessness, could not be nurtured in the contract culture but could have been supported under the old grants system.
At the beginning of my speech I quoted from an NCVO report in 1990. Last month the council submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Health on community care implementation. Perhaps I may conclude with a quotation from that evidence which I hope the Government will take very seriously:
"On the basis of our experience so far we consider it essential to maintain a variety of financial support for the sector and to recognise that some activities and support from public funds may be best channelled through grants rather than contracts, especially for innovative work and community development action".
4.27 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, like many people in this Chamber I have served as a trustee on several voluntary bodies and I know how deeply concerned they are about their ability at least to carry on their good work if to expand it is hopeless. However, I am also concerned about the health of our society and about its frustrated will to succour many of its members who suffer distressing misfortune.
The subject of our debate today was also that of William Beveridge's last great report. The Labour Government had laid the foundations of what we called the welfare state, but what he called the social state. That, we thought, was that. The new Utopia was on its way, guided and financed by benevolent state action. However, Beveridge, although appreciative of what Labour had done, was unhappy about the rejection of some of his ideas. He had hoped that the friendly societies would be used to humanise and personalise national insurance, but they were not. He was commissioned by a friendly society to survey the history of philanthropic and aid movements in Britain. He was afraid that those movements would decline with the decay of religious conviction and a foolish new belief that all material and social needs would be met by the state with its infinite power and riches.
I do not mind confessing that I shared that foolish belief in those happy, hectic, halcyon hours of a Labour Government with a commanding majority, but Beveridge won me over. In the end, he won everyone over. He showed us that there were many areas of social need that had been left out of his report on social insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, was right. That was the attitude, but it has not been the attitude among my colleagues for many years. It is 45 years since Beveridge wrote that report.

247
Beveridge listed the areas of social need that had been left out of his report. Those areas, which comprise the groundwork of many voluntary bodies, will be familiar to noble Lords; the chronically sick and disabled; old people's housing; battered and neglected children; discharged prisoners; unmarried mothers; and refuges for sick, tired and battered housewives. The old Beveridge had dealt with the average citizen. The new Beveridge was concerned with distressed minorities. He saw that the services they needed could best be given by an amalgam of trained social workers and ordinary citizens inspired by a social conscience. He stressed above all the need for a working partnership between the state on one side and individuals and voluntary organisations on the other.
We must not be complacent about our social provision. We must all recognise that much progress has been made over these years since Beveridge wrote his gloomy predictions. They did not come true, thanks to individuals with a social conscience and thanks also to generous state provision. That provision is becoming less generous. These are hard times and they affect not merely government but the other sources of grant giving which have sustained voluntary action. There is also a certain impatience in society with social provision, a rejection even of the ethical substitute for the Christian conviction that has inspired, and even now inspires, much of our philanthropy.
What Beveridge wanted was for human society to become a friendly society. I recommend a reading of Joseph Harris's splendid biography which is to be found in our Library. Beveridge was the prophet of peaceful social revolution and the champion of new forms of collective altruism. A great deal of that revolution has been sustained but is now in danger.
We have witnessed a great advance since his day. The question is: how can we keep it going in the light of the current restraints? The demand for resources in London exceeds by far the supply. Inflation has taken its toll. There is a loss of 25 per cent. spending power on these projects since 1986. I hear with sorrow that Age Concern has had to close down some day centres and to scrap a taxi scheme for the disabled. I was particularly disconcerted to hear of the anxieties of the CABs. Only this morning I met a woman who for days has feared a threat that the bailiffs would seek to enter her home and take her property to pay a debt incurred by her adult daughter. The CAB had not merely advised her; it had dealt with the threat itself. A small example, but a poignant one. There are thousands of such cases every day.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, in instigating this debate, to speak on this subject, but as the chairman of a charity, Mencap, which will probably spend over £65 million this coming year, I regret having to cut so many references to so many problems which we face. I trust that such cuts will not
248
apply to our myriad services—housing, education, leisure and employment—and our 465 local societies which have to go around raising their own cash.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one problem which threatens our work with individuals and families throughout the country; that is, the withdrawal of the Urban Programme. That programme, which has for the past few years offered approximately 75 per cent. central funding to projects in our urban areas, has been withdrawn by the Government to be replaced, in part, by the Urban Partnership Fund set at £20 million.
The figures will be clearer and more meaningful to some others in your Lordships' House than they are to me. I gather that we are talking about a switch from a projected Urban Programme spend of only a fraction of the old Urban Programme, supplemented by whatever funds local authorities can redeploy from a slightly relaxed central government grasp on the authorities' own resources. As against that, the City Challenge Programme expands from a very modest base to some £230 million spread over some 30 projects.
The City Challenge Programme can, I understand, cover childcare projects, to which I want to refer in a moment. There may therefore be hope under the new arrangements. However, for projects which depend on the current arrangements the future is uncertain and in some cases bleak. Termination of schemes is threatened and it seems right to draw attention to the problem when the axe is poised, rather than waiting until the axe has fallen.
Let me give one example. Until this year the Government's Urban Programme has funded 140 summer playschemes in the City of Liverpool for children with or without disabilities, in an area which has problems not limited to football results and football pools. These playschemes do not run all year and hence are treated as new projects every year. The Government, on abolishing the programme, made a commitment to fund ongoing schemes but not new ones. These playgroups have fallen foul of this announcement.
The grant application for this year was to be for £178,000 to run 140 playschemes around the city, providing 5,000 places for children. At least 10 schemes specifically provide for approximately 300 children with special needs. Others took children with disabilities alongside others without. At best only one of these special schemes will continue this summer. Other schemes will be unable to take children with special needs, if they survive at all.
I understand that the Children Act may be prayed in aid of resourcing these special schemes, but that is possible only if the local authority can find the money to fulfil its Children Act obligations. Can the Minister offer any assurances about these schemes? Since they are an annual fixture, can they be protected as existing schemes? It is unlikely that Liverpool City Council will be able to find £178,000 of new money to keep these schemes going. I do not care what form the help takes, provided the playschemes go on.
So much for the Urban Programme, but I do not believe that we can discuss local authorities and

249
funding without referring to community care, a policy which should and does offer so many opportunities but one about which people with a learning disability and their families are increasingly anxious. There has been much public debate as to whether the money being transferred from the Department of Social Security to the local authorities is adequate for the tasks they are being asked to fulfil and I must say that, now we know the overall settlement levels, I am in agreement that it is not adequate. People with severe learning disabilities so often rely on the provision of a wide range and high quality of service to ensure even a reasonable quality of life, and yet we see a decline in day service provision and acute crises around the country as the provision of short-term care dries up. No charity, even one as strong as Mencap, can plug the gap.
It is no good developing the language of community care unless we can also develop the reality. Swimming is a favourite exercise of mine and it seems to me that an analogy for the current situation is expecting people to jump into the community care pool while draining off the water. That way lies disaster.
Wearing my Arts Council of Great Britain hat as chairman of the drama panel, I should like to draw noble Lords' attention, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to the problems of arts funding. I remind noble Lords that the Arts Council of Great Britain regional arts boards are charities and that boards running theatres, as non profit making companies, are made up of volunteers. Indeed, in many theatrical venues, actors' pay is so poor that they too could well be classed as volunteers. Arts provision is at the discretion of local authorities. In these times, when statutory provision is under threat, arts funding is a prime target for cuts. Scotland is luckier, for there arts funding is recognised as a statutory obligation upon local authorities. That is acknowledged within their revenue support grant calculations. Here we Sassenachs are inclined to treat ring-fencing as a veritable threat to our democracy.
If I may, I shall illustrate the problems south of the Border with reference to two theatres only which are facing real problems now in their funding. There are indeed many more. The Tricycle Theatre, in the London Borough of Brent, has been told to expect a cut in its grant support, which will certainly mean its closure. The Tricycle Theatre serves an inner city area, has a high reputation for opening itself to the community, including ethnic minorities and disabled people, and is dedicated to new writing. It is a very important part of the national theatre scene and its loss will be deeply felt.
The New Victoria Theatre, Newcastle-under-Lyme, was opened in 1986. It is reliant on funding from three local authorities, two of which are now cutting their contributions this year, resulting in the New Victoria Theatre being in the gravest danger of having to close its operation at the end of this year —less than seven years after its grand opening. An absurd waste of money.
I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that this debate is about local authorities
250
and the funding of charities and voluntary organisations. Two quotations seem to me to be an appropriate way to conclude my comments today. The first is from Francis Bacon, the philosopher rather than the painter:
"In charity there is no excess",
or to be more practical in this day and age, the advice given by George Arnold, an American poet of the last century:
"The living need charity more than the dead".
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made his maiden speech I suggested that he had done more for the distressed in this country than anyone living with the exception of Lord Cheshire who was then very ill. Lord Cheshire has since died, alas, but I am very glad that his widow is to speak today. I now feel that the torch passes without question to the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
It has been a very well-informed and distinguished debate. My noble friend Lady Fisher made a most arresting speech. I hope that I shall not dispel an atmosphere of good will if I strike rather a jarring note. I look a little below the surface, which is sometimes a bit dangerous. When we talk about cuts some people may think that they are acts of God. Others may put them down to the ill will of Ministers. I do not do that at all; I put it down to the theory of Thatcherism which has been brought out in these debates before now.
The distribution of wealth in this country was made more and more equal for many years after the war by Labour and Conservative Governments. I have no doubt that if there had been a Liberal Government they would have done the same. Then from 1979 onwards all that has been reversed. I do not know what the latest figures are because they have not come my way. However, in the past 13 years the balance has moved in favour of the rich. We must expect some consequences from that. It would he very odd if the poor had not been damaged. The poor have been damaged. The most vulnerable elements of society can be damaged.
I shall speak only about three organisations with which I am connected. Obviously, I shall speak with much brevity. They are the New Horizon Youth Centre, Melting Pot, which is an organisation for young black people in Brixton, and the Matthew Trust for those who have been in mental or special hospitals. They are all organisations which have started within the past 25 years. I have been associated with all of them from the beginning. I suppose I can claim that I founded the New Horizon Youth Centre. I am not going to dwell on the details. In each case the organisations have suffered recently from government policies reflected through a reduction in local assistance or, in the case of the Matthew Trust, because of the difficulties in which local government finds itself.
For example, New Horizon was financed in various ways and it was approved by government. That can be shown by the support that the organisation has been given over the years. That body is now seeing about

251
3,000 people a year. When it started the office was so small that when the secretary was sitting at her desk I had to work in the passage. However, that was a long time ago. Now the number of workers has been cut because Camden has found itself strapped for cash. I believe that that is the expression which is used about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The number of social workers has been reduced. That is one example. Melting Pot is an organisation for young black people in Brixton. It has done great work and has had a great deal of public approval and support from those who are well informed on such matters. Now Lambeth has cut its grant by 59 per cent. It may be said that Lambeth has not been managing its affairs particularly well. But however badly Lambeth has been managing its affairs, this is the result of government policy. That is another example.
The position of the Matthew Trust is rather different. It does not get a grant from public authorities. It helps local authorities to make community care more of a reality than at present. Now it finds itself in great difficulties because it is being asked to perform impossible tasks. It has been asked in the next two years to find half as much money again as it found in the previous 17 years to help local authorities with community care. That is going to mean an extraordinary effort if it is to play the part which it has done hitherto in helping local authorities to do what is supposed to be their job. I give those three examples. Many others have been brought forward today and there are many more which could be brought forward.
I regard these matters as primarily the result of government policy. It has been a policy which, although well intentioned, has been disastrous for the most vulnerable. I hope that the House will not think that I suggest that noble Lords opposite such as the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Holderness, are any less caring than I am. The Conservative Party today says things which I was brought up to believe in. But now I feel that it is wrong. The people who brought me up and with whom I associated in my earlier days were just as caring as the people I work with now. It is not a personal question but one of a fatal philosophy. I can put the matter more strongly. I hope that noble Lords will realise that the responsibility for the cuts and the damage done to the most vulnerable people lies with the Government.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, at a time when many hospital beds are being closed to all but urgent and emergency cases, and when many London hospitals are now in danger of closure, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations are facing what I believe will be the most severe cuts for many years. As I listened to the speeches from the Benches opposite, much though I admire those who spoke and much though I agreed with some of what they had to say, I felt that there was not the sense of urgency which has been heard from this side of the House and certainly from my noble friend Lady Fisher when she opened the debate.
252
I believe that we are going to see jobs cut in teaching and social services in the next few months, libraries closed and welfare services abolished. Certainly for me locally the Hampstead Community Centre closed down last week ending 17 years of service to the community. Mothers and toddlers' groups, old people's tea-parties and childcare provisions have all been axed. The evidence of impending cuts in the community-care field come from right across the country. But I wish to concentrate on the effect of government policy on mental health services, alcohol and drug abuse.
Local authorities have given priority to their own statutory requirements. One of the problems that many of the other services face is that it is not a statutory obligation on local authorities to meet some of the needs, particularly in the drug and alcohol abuse field. Danger signs are seen by many organisations. Many local MIND groups—I declare an interest as president of that body—have been experiencing difficulties. It is considered by many of them that the authorities are trying to replicate statutory-type services rather than encourage the development of new services that better meet the needs of the community, which is the field in which voluntary organisations have a great reputation.
Many of the local associations also felt that they had not been given sufficient time to put proposals to the authorities. As a result the contracts being drawn up between the associations and the authorities are lacking some detail. I could give examples.
Others have referred to the problems of Age Concern. At a time when the number of very old people is steadily increasing, it is a tragedy that Age Concern should be required to take cuts in its funding. There are growing anxieties that local authority funding of voluntary organisations is being eroded and that where funding is available it is increasingly being tied up in contracts for direct service provision. Development work, innovative projects, training and outreach work and general revenue costs are all feeling the pressure. Even in areas where Age Concern organisations are not facing direct cuts in their grants, they are finding that their workload has increased due to the current pressures on other organisations in their area such as citizens advice bureaux. Although there is more work for the Age Concern organisations, they are not being provided with the funds to meet the new demands.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others have referred to the Urban Programme. I believe that the Government have made a very serious decision on that.
I should like to spend two or three minutes dealing with the severe problems facing those concerned with alcohol and drug addiction. According to a survey of 91 services which was carried out by the national organisations, Alcohol Concern and the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, 46 agencies said that the Government's decision not to protect funds for residential alcohol and drug treatment in the transfer of money to local authorities in April would mean that they would become financially unviable by the end of

253
July. In all, 67 respondents, providing over 1,300 bed spaces, predicted that they would face a financially impossible situation in 1993.
Faced with much competition for scarce local authority funds, alcohol and drug services are taking a realistic view of the future and are preparing for imminent closures. One has to ask what will happen to those abusers, some of whom may have become abusers partly because of the high levels of unemployment and the other pressures upon them? What will happen to them? Will they be on the streets? Will they end the treatment that they have been receiving?
Furthermore, 50 per cent. of services are planning to make staff redundant in the first half of 1993. One in four projects is being forced to make immediate plans to lay off staff before the changes come into effect. The survey paints a depressing picture of the prospects for the treatment centres after April. It confirms that the immediate future for alcohol and drug services is bleak. Most are unable to see how they can continue to operate under the new arrangements which will be introduced in April. Scarcely any believe that the measures being carried out by the Government will even begin to tackle the problem.
We must ask the Government what answers they have to the problems that are being faced by these essential services. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, referred to the work of Phoenix House and mentioned that we both have a deep concern about its work. If one talks to the staff there one learns that they do not know how many of their centres will be forced to close within the next few months.
I ask the Government whether we can hear something less complacent from the Minister than we have heard so far. He must recognise that we are facing a crisis in the voluntary sector in terms of providing essential services—and I think that the Government recognise that they are, indeed, essential services. I resent the suggestion that on this side of the House there is a lesser commitment to voluntary organisations. I have never seen voluntary organisations as an alternative to statutory bodies. However, voluntary organisations can take initiatives and use imagination, which statutory bodies often cannot. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the folly of the Government's policies, many of these initiatives dried up.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, for initiating this debate. This is a critical period for all of us who have responsibility for looking after those who cannot be cared for elsewhere. Many of us have accepted this responsibility over a very long period and for several thousand people and we have been fortunate—rather long ago, alas, and in the past—to establish a good working relationship with those in the public sector with whom we co-operate in this sphere.
It has always been the prerogative of government to determine the way in which the public sector responds
254
to changing circumstances. It is, by the same token, the obligation of the Government to ensure that provision adequately meets the demands of the hour.
Some four months ago the Secretary of State issued a press release setting out funding arrangements for social service departments. Less than two months are left before the transfer of responsibilities. I can speak only for the homes and other activities which bear my name in the foundation, but not a single contract that we know of is in place. Many authorities are still drafting the agreements. Many do not appear to know how much money they may have available.
There is a wide perception that in many cases the local and health authorities are simply not talking to each other and that, where assessment teams have been set up, there is insufficient input from the medical authorities and an inadequate balance of comprehension of the contrast between an expectation of low costs set against not only the search, but the demand, for far higher standards by bureaucrats. But higher standards appear to be resulting in demands for 80 to 100 per cent. single room facilities (each with its own loo and shower as well)—and this at a time when the demands upon us in this sector for all age groups (and for whatever disability or sickness) grow day by day. Also, we are given no financial grants (as happens in other countries) to meet these huge costs. How then are we expected to raise these huge sums year in, year out?
Can the Minister give me any reassurance that active steps are being taken to address all these uncertainties (I mean in terms of planning for the future)? I repeat that we are talking about the futures of individual people with needs, not just about "clients" as they are now referred to by some people in the Departments of Health and of Social Security. I need not remind your Lordships—you have heard this from so many other noble Lords—of the matters which concern us so deeply and cause masses of speculation in so many vital areas.
Perhaps I may finally quote just one example. A patient with progressive Motor Neurone disease wants to be admitted to a Sue Ryder Home and his doctor urges us to take him. But we are told by the social worker at the DHS that he cannot come yet. Perhaps I may therefore remind both your Lordships and the Minister of this person's unnecessary suffering and distress and press for action and proper funding now.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I want to concentrate on the youth service. The great importance of this service during a recession is obvious. Unemployment among young people is at an all-time high. Young people are not all getting on training schemes, as promised by the Government. Homelessness is increasing because of the changes to the benefit system. Truancy is increasing.
I should like to tell your Lordships about Tony, a 14 year-old in Wisbech. He did not like schools and schools did not like him. But every day he turned up at Youth Unlimited, a youth centre, while he was not attending school and spent his time in the workshop

255
converting old cars into racing models after one of the youth leaders taught him welding. He is now attending a different school but is still a regular visitor to the centre. He has helped to make a ramp for skateboarders in the yard and is doing up old bicycles to sell for club funds. He wants to be a mechanic and a racing driver. I feel that there is some moral here. The crime rate among young people is increasing. Peter Winship, an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in a report Juvenile Crime and Youth Provision said:
"Sustaining and enhancing youth provision provides an opportunity to reduce criminal opportunity by removing young people from situations where they are likely to commit, or become, the victims of crime. It would also increase the ability of the police to use alternative methods of dealing with persistent offenders".
It is everyone's wish to keep young people out of custody, but to do so it is necessary to have provision where the police and the courts can have confidence that worthwhile activities are going on so that community service orders can be made. If the youth service is starved of resources, that provision will diminish and perhaps vanish.
"It costs £350 a week to keep someone in an offender's institution",
Mr. Randall, chief executive of the Association of Combined Youth Clubs said.
"Give me £3 a head and I can keep clubs running for a whole year".
Well, what is happening? I have collected information on what is likely to happen to education budgets for 1993–94. It is a grim picture: cuts almost everywhere; principal youth officers being made redundant in many cases. In Bedfordshire the youth service is carrying many vacant posts. Enfield expects to make cuts of £7 million to £8 million in its budget and that, its chief education officer says, will mean the end of the youth service. Barnet's situation is much the same. In Bury the abolition of community education is an option for cost cutting. Those are just a few examples. It is a very gloomy picture.
The withdrawal of the Urban Programme and the uncertain future of Section 11 funding are exacerbating the situation. Youth Action allocations through the GEST scheme are of course welcome, but for an authority to accept the offer it has to provide 40 per cent. to match central moneys and Enfield does not know whether it will manage that. There is the extraordinary position in Warwickshire, which has changed its whole approach, with the authority taking on a co-ordinating role, which means devolving the control of youth service provision to a number of independent trusts. The legality of those arrangements seems to me to be dubious. I ask the Minister to comment upon the legality of the actions of Warwickshire and Enfield.
What repercussions do those local authority cuts have on voluntary organisations? Well, there are a great many. For one thing, most rely on some grant from their local authority, and if the authority is short of cash for its own purposes, it will obviously be unable to make grants. The indirect services provided by authorities are highly valued by the voluntary sector. Those include allowing staff from the
256
voluntary sector to join training schemes at no cost, access to minibuses and special equipment; and permitting the use of school premises at subsidised rates. However, recent legislative changes have shifted much of the decision and policy-making in those areas from the LEA to individual establishments and that may well put some of the arrangements at risk.
What I fear is happening is that when an LEA is short of cash for its schools it plunders the youth service. There are two reasons for that. One is the fear of schools opting out of the system. The other is that there is a statutory responsibility to provide education for five to 16 year-olds. Despite our efforts, we have not achieved what we wanted: a duty to provide a youth service. During the Commons stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill, the Minister summed up for the Government:
"The provisions of the new Section 41 and Section 53 of the 44 Act cover the youth service more than adequately … The legal base for the youth service rests on a cross-fertilisation of provisions in the Education Acts which together cover the provisions made by the youth service for those of school age and above".
What is now clear is that that cross-fertilisation of provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act and the Schools Act, since they make no provision to secure the youth service, not only exclude it but work together against it. The Government's claim that the Further and Higher Education Act,
"safeguards the legal base of the youth service",
has been challenged significantly by the decisions made in Warwickshire and the proposals in Bury, Barnet and Enfield.
The Criminal Justice Act and the Children Act both aim to help. They provide a well argued legislative framework for the care and protection of young people at risk. Their goal is clear: prevention is better than cure; the needs of the child or young person must come first; an adequate service for those in need must be provided. But again we are up against the definition of "adequate". To most of us, what is happening all over the country is clearly inadequate.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about London after the demise of the ILEA. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 2nd December whether the Government would reconsider ending the three-year interim grant that was due to end in March 1993. She replied that there would be some further funding to certain London organisations in partnership with the London Borough Grants Committee. She said that the money to support the voluntary organisations would rise from £2.3 million to £2.8 million. I understand that that was not correct. The figures referred to were for national voluntary youth organisations; only a part of those funds would be available for work in London. Will the Minister please tell us the latest news, and what support voluntary organisations dependent upon the grants will be receiving? Is the sum to be the same for three years or is it to be tapered?
During the course of that same Question, the Minister mentioned an additional £400,000 in grant aid for the National Youth Agency for voluntary youth projects. I am told that the agency has 281 firm applications for that and was able to fund eight

257
projects only. The number and quality of the applications is a clear indicator of the huge need for moneys at local level. The situation overall is extremely serious and depressing. Do the Government recognise that? Are they going to do anything to help?
5.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Fisher for introducing the debate, and introducing it in what I thought was a powerful manner. The fact that we have had many speakers, all experienced in charitable and voluntary organisation work and most of them—I say "them", but I include me—involved in the administration of charities, implies that the House gives a particular importance to the subject. I am glad that it does, because it is a subject which should be at least a high point in any central government and local government agenda.
The opportunities for local government were set out in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which has since been amended rather radically. Nevertheless the section provides that local authorities are allowed to authorise expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of, and will bring direct benefit to, their area or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants. That is a fundamental opportunity local government has in addressing the concerns of those it is elected to represent.
I do not have to remind your Lordships that the Local Government Act 1972 was passed at a time when most parties believed in local democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the point rather clearly. We now have a period of standard spending assessments. We are in revenue capping, and we are now told that local authorities are not responsible for what they spend; it is the Government who will tell them what they will spend. It is in that manner that I would respond, rather indirectly, to the charge that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, made, which I think was rightly rejected by my noble friend Lord Howell. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is not in his place, so I shall pass to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who seemed to echo the same charge—that is, that, as a party we were not interested in voluntary organisations. We believed that local government should provide certain services under the Local Government Act 1972, but we were never against the voluntary organisations. It is only when the Government stop local government providing the same services that we must have recourse to voluntary organisations. That is the main theme of what I shall say.
I turn to the constraints. I do not want to go through all the arguments which have been put forward by many noble Lords about particular charities in which they may be interested. I wish to point out only one or two major issues on which I believe the Minister will wish to concentrate. The Minister has heard a litany of disaster. Noble Lords on all sides have said that voluntary organisations are on the point of collapse because of all the restrictions. Therefore, I make only three or four points on which I believe the Government can take action, even within
258
the constraints of public sector and local government finance. I do not ask for funds to be dished out. I am saying that the Government can take quite legitimate action on these matters.
First is the question of the council tax. Like my noble friends Lady Fisher and Lady Jay, I have received many briefings from different organisations and it is clear from those briefings that charities will be subject to council tax and that residential care providers in the voluntary sector will be faced with a new charge on the introduction of the council tax. Whereas those residents were exempt from the late lamented poll tax, they will have to pay the council tax. That will significantly increase the costs of many residential care providers. The Government could take action in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others referred to the Urban Programme. I do not say that anything which has been said is untrue but it is true that, if the Urban Programme is to be phased out, as I understand is now government policy, the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund contributions, as well as private company donations, will vanish as a result. Therefore, the loss will be duplicated and we shall lose the European money which we should properly have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords referred to community care and contracting and purchasing. That seems to be the major crisis of the moment. The DSS funds transferred to local government and the element to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred —ring-fenced special transitional grant—un-derestimate wildly the cost of implementing the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
That, taken with the standard spending assessment figures for personal social service spending available to local authorities, seems to make it absolutely clear that many local authorities will need to make cuts, not increases, in this area in the face of continued capping of their expenditure. A recent survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services indicates that almost 90 per cent. of their sample of local authority departments are planning cuts in their services.
Furthermore, and worse than that, voluntary organisations like housing associations which are prepared to tender for contracts do not know to whom they must tender. Local authorities do not know what budgets they have. I am told by responsible people who will have to be involved in the programme that, come 1st April—and I must remind the Minister that it is not far away—there is a risk that there will be a total shambles. I invite the Minister to make sure that that does not happen.
The whole situation is complicated by the fact that over the years the Government have imposed burdens on local authorities which, by their very nature, the authorities are unable to sustain. Furthermore, I found myself taking on the environment portfolio in this House very recently and I have faced the question: do the Government really care about local government at all? I put the question in that rather stark form although my noble friend Lord Longford raised it as

259
a philosophical point. Time and time again we have heard government Ministers loading duties on to local authorities without making available the resources necessary to carry out those duties. That being the case, if the burden can be taken up, it must be taken up by voluntary organisations.
While I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on some of the points he made, voluntary organisations can only exist—and this is important —if core funding is available from some public authority. Anybody who has been involved in any charitable or voluntary organisation knows perfectly well that core funding is essential for the organisation to exist in the first place. Grant-making bodies are perfectly willing to make donations for projects and programmes, provided that they are approved. However, where the core funding of an organisation suffers, the organisation breaks down.
I say to the Minister that it is little short of a scandal that over the years the Government have, by their treatment of local authorities and by their own actions, reduced the core funding available to voluntary organisations to enable them to carry out their proper work. That is deliberate. I believe that the Government are simply shuffling off all responsibility. I know that the Minister disagrees with me but perhaps he will listen to what I have to say because this is an important point.
hope that the Minister—it may be a forlorn hope but I live in hope—will indicate that the Government may change their view. In the light of this debate and in the light of the fact that all those who have spoken, in whatever way they have spoken, have indicated that there is a very serious problem, I hope that the Government are prepared to change their view. In my personal opinion, after all that has been said in this debate, which has been extremely interesting and informative, if the Government do not change their view and change it fairly quickly, then voluntary organisations will no longer be able to carry out the work which up to now has been funded by local authorities. That will be a disadvantage to the whole country.
5.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for bringing to the attention of the House the very important question of voluntary sector funding and the part that local authorities can play. We have heard some excellent speeches. I shall turn to the points raised in a moment.
I know that we all admire the valuable contribution that voluntary organisations make to our society. Their work with children, the elderly and the disadvantaged—to name but a few examples—is irreplaceable. They are often uniquely placed to provide help and support precisely where needed, and they have the wide range of knowledge and experience to do that most effectively.
Voluntary organisations receive funding from a variety of sources. Many noble Lords support a
260
number of different charities. I am sure that we have all made donations of some kind to a worthy cause. Charities conduct sophisticated fund-raising campaigns, and local government is yet another source of income.
There has been much discussion in today's debate of the constraints on local authority funding, and although I recognise the arguments put forward by noble Lords, I am not at all surprised by the case that has been made. We can all put forward good reasons why more money has to be spent but whether it is spent by central government or local government, run by Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats, decisions still have to be made on funding. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, recognises that those decisions have to be made. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, recognises that those decisions have to be made. However, when he was Secretary of State for Health in the Labour Government he had to make some extremely difficult spending decisions, as did the noble Lord, Lord Howell, when he was a government Minister.
Local authorities have wide legal powers to fund the voluntary sector. Under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, this expenditure is entirely discretionary and limited only to a fixed sum per head of population. Another example is Section 142 of the same Act, which allows authorities to assist organisations such as law centres to provide information and practical assistance to people about their rights and obligations.
I cannot, however, agree with the argument that there should be a statutory duty on authorities to fund voluntary groups. They must retain the right to make their own spending decisions in the light of local circumstances. A statutory requirement in one area would open the door to similar requests for other services, such as leisure, economic development and bus subsidies, for example. We are determined to resist such pressures.
This brings me to a point of absolute principle in the area of local government finance. It is the Government's firm policy to ensure that local authorities receive sufficient resources to meet the needs of their area and to provide a standard level of services throughout the country. However, in line with that, we believe that in general it is they who should decide how they allocate the resources and what their spending priorities are.
There is no question of our ignoring the needs of local democracy. We fundamentally believe in that. We have sought to reform local government to make it more accountable to local people. I recognise that the argument put forward by noble Lords opposite is confused. They want local democracy but, if their favourite schemes are not funded, they believe that it is the responsibility of the Government. We cannot and will not interfere in the right of locally elected representatives to make those decisions. That would not be good for local democracy and would not be good for local authorities.
It is appropriate for me to say a few words about the local government finance settlement for the coming year. Noble Lords will know that the

261
Secretary of State announced his decisions last week, and indeed, as I speak, they are being debated in another place. We have been told by many people that it is a tough settlement. It is true that we will not see increases at the same level as previous years. That is only reasonable as next year we will have a low level of inflation and wage increase. The Government are offering over £1 billion more in external support. I hope authorities agree that they have the resources to provide a good standard of services and to control their costs and council tax levels. There should not be any reason why an efficient and well-run authority cannot continue to fund local voluntary organisations within grant levels.
The question of efficiency is important. This was quite rightly recognised by my noble friend Lord Joseph. Authorities must consider the best way of delivering the services for which they are responsible. In many instances they find that the voluntary sector provides a much more cost-effective service than they themselves could do. Again it is up to local authorities to make the judgment, and once they have done so, to provide the necessary funding. This is something which more authorities could consider and take on to a broader extent, and I recommend it to them. The benefits to both parties are obvious. It is also completely consistent with the Government's view that local government should operate more in an enabling role rather than its more traditional function as sole provider of services. Compulsory competitive tendering, contracting out and local management of schools are all examples of that.
I believe that the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, are real and that they have been recognised as such by the Department of Health, particularly as regards its dealings with small voluntary organisations. The Department of Health is working with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and is funding a £300,000 project to facilitate the change that has been mentioned.
I turn to a separate point. There have been calls for central government to intervene more directly. One suggestion has been to make specific grants to local authorities for voluntary sector funding. Central government already provide direct support to the sector to the tune of around £2.6 billion annually. However, I have to say that there are drawbacks to specific grants. There is the danger that they could replace local decision-making with a cumbersome and remote Whitehall machinery. I cannot believe that that would be in the interests of local groups of whatever type.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that urban aid has practically gone. I must disagree with her. The Government have increased the resources to the urban group of programmes by more than £90 million to a total of over £1 billion in 1993–94. Taken together the total Urban Programme and City Challenge resources will rise from £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in 1993–94. Authorities have used part of the money to fund voluntary groups in the past and will no doubt continue to do so. That is their decision, and rightly so. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher,
262
that the Government do not dislike Birmingham. After all, Birmingham has just won the City Challenge and a sum of £37.5 million from the Government. Birmingham won that award because it put forward the best schemes for local voluntary groups. We should all be immensely proud of that.
My noble friend Lord Joseph mentioned the charity Home-Start. I am aware of the valuable work of that charity in counselling young families. It works in 18 of the urban priority authorities. There are three such projects in Birmingham. The charity is funded by a number of government departments, in particular the Department of Health.
There will be £156 million available from the Urban Programme for continued support for a substantial number of existing projects. In addition we must not forget the support that voluntary organisations have received, and will continue to receive, from City Challenge. The main thrust of this policy is to ensure that people in inner cities benefit from renewal strategies through more jobs, a better environment and an improved quality of life. What we are doing is to secure a full partnership of all those with a stake in the area where support is targeted. That must include voluntary groups and local communities. For example, all of the City Challenge partnership boards include community or voluntary sector representatives. Many of the partnerships, such as in Bradford and Lewisham, are also appointing community workers to develop local capacity and projects and partnerships are setting up a variety of community fora to act as co-ordinating bodies for local input to the plan.
Another example of the way co-operation is working very effectively at the local level is the sheltered placement scheme. This, as many noble Lords will know, provides work opportunities in open employment for people with severe disabilities. It involves a host employer, a sponsor such as a local authority or voluntary body, and the Employment Service, which contributes towards the sponsor's costs. The results of the scheme are excellent: some 12,000 people with severe disabilities have been provided with jobs in sheltered workshops and sheltered placements.
I turn now to the new partnership grants scheme between the Department for Education and the London Boroughs Grants Committee. This was set up after the committee invited us to work with it to provide support to voluntary organisations in London. It is a welcome development and provides the right way forward. It will reflect the needs of the London region and should help to improve co-ordination between voluntary providers and local authorities in London. The criticism that the new scheme will result in a reduction in support to the voluntary sector in London is misconceived. The scheme represents new money. It is not an extension of the old interim grants scheme, which in any case was time-limited.
That is yet another example of the many instances where closer links have been forged in recent years between the statutory and the voluntary sector providers of local youth services. We have supported

263
and encouraged that partnership. A number of authorities are seeking to negotiate service agreements with voluntary organisations, and a few are looking at ways of devolving their spending to voluntary organisations.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, also indicated that some authorities are considering significant cuts in youth service budgets. But that is by no means the national picture. There is evidence that up and down the country many councils are seeking to protect those budgets. The director of the National Youth Agency recently referred in this context to areas such as Somerset, Staffordshire, Kensington and Chelsea, Northamptonshire and Kent. Indeed, I understand that Somerset sees the youth service as one of its major priorities after schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about the legality of youth service provision. The simple answer is that while local education authorities have a large measure of discretion they must act reasonably in deciding how to discharge their statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities.
I turn to the question of homeless people and rough sleepers, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Renton. The noble Baroness suggested that homeless people could do voluntary work until they were able to find work, to prevent the downward spiral. That sounds an admirable idea, but I do not believe that it is the Government's role—at least at this stage—to tell voluntary bodies whom they should employ or whose services they should accept.
I am conscious that the noble Baroness asked me a number of detailed questions. Perhaps she will understand if I cannot answer them all today. However, I can answer her point in relation to the appeal to build flats for the homeless in Ripon. I should stress that local authorities have a duty to house anyone who is homeless, as defined in Part III of the Housing Act 1985. For rough sleepers, outside London £6.1 million is available to voluntary organisations under Section 73 grants and there are some 150 projects around England and Wales. Over the next three years resources of more than £20 million will be made available to that grant programme. I believe that all noble Lords understand the wretchedness of rough sleepers and homeless people. I hope that noble Lords also recognise the serious contribution the Government are making to trying to solve the problem.
On the question of fast-track assessments for drug and alcohol misusers, we recognise that the special circumstances of alcohol and drug misusers have implications for both local authorities and service providers in funding for community care. To address those problems we are encouraging local authorities and alcohol and drug service providers to work together to establish fast-track assessment procedures to ensure that decisions about service provision for those clients can be made quickly. The details of the assessment procedure will, of course, depend on the local authority and local needs.
The subject of capping was raised by the noble
264
Baroness, Lady Fisher, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The vast majority of local authorities have accepted the need for financial restraint. We hope that that trend will continue and that it will not be necessary to cap any authority. However, the Government must retain the power to protect council tax payers and to prevent any repetition of the massive increase in spending which we saw when the community charge system was introduced. We must ensure that we all—central and local government—play our part in the control of public expenditure in order to secure our wider economic objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised a point concerning the European Social Fund and the European Regional Fund. I shall check, but I believe that those regimes require only matching funding, not necessarily from the Urban Programmes. However, I undertake to look into that further.
My noble friend Lord Joseph said that it would not be a voluntary sector if all of its funding came from central government. In fact, the voluntary sector raises approximately 80 per cent. of its funding from other sources. In these difficult times there are pressures on all sources of funding. Nevertheless, government support amounts to nearly £3 billion, which is a substantial sum.
It is all too easy to criticise the activities and results of voluntary organisations and to lay the blame at the door of government. The examples I have given show that that is not the case. We have a thriving voluntary sector in this country, supported by central and local authorities. Let us not diminish their efforts with talk of cutbacks and crises. It is not our intention to jeopardise the valuable partnership which exists.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for bringing the matter to our attention.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, in replying to the Minister I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. They have rightly spoken on behalf of certain charities which are very worried. I am not sure that the Minister's comments will allay those worries. It was rather like applying salve to the outside of a pain. It does not get to the heart of the matter.
I listened to what the Minister had to say. He has a big, welcoming door, and he has some money in some kitties somewhere. I just hope that when people knock on his door he will open it and say, "Welcome, come and enjoy our goodies." I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Army Manpower
5.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a

265
Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about Army manpower.
"My right honourable friend the Member for Bridgwater set out our plans for Britain's Army for the 1990s in June and July 1991. These reflected the United Kingdom's leadership of, and substantial contribution to, the new Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps as well as the need to provide for the direct defence of the United Kingdom, our responsibilities in our dependent territories and elsewhere and our continued support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. He envisaged at that time that there would be some 116,000 regular personnel in the Army by the mid-1990s. This figure included some 12,000 personnel under training, giving a total trained strength of around 104,000.
"Both he and I have repeatedly emphasised the importance we attach to ensuring that the Armed Forces are able to respond to the demands we place upon them. The requirement to allow sufficient leeway to deal with the unexpected was one of the major considerations underpinning the original work on Options for Change. My predecessor and I have also made clear that we would keep the position under review and that, should we judge it necessary to look again at planned force levels and the balance between capabilities, we would do so.
"The judgments made in Options for Change remain valid. The threat to our national security is much less than it was. Since 1991, however, there have been a number of developments which have added significantly to the commitments the Army is required to meet at the same time that it is in the process of reorganising. Additional battalions have been deployed to Northern Ireland and our overall contribution to United Nations peacekeeping tasks in Cyprus, Cambodia, the former Republic of Yugoslavia, and elsewhere, has almost trebled. The effect of these additional commitments, combined with the disruption caused by the restructuring and drawdown, is placing increasing pressure on individual soldiers and their families. This is something about which many honourable Members have understandably expressed concern. As planning for the ARRC and other elements of the force structure has been taken forward a number of requirements for additional manpower have also been identified.
"Against this background, I have been considering for a number of months, with my military advisers, the need to adjust the force levels set out by my right honourable friend. I have concluded that there is a case for an adjustment in the planned strength of the Army. I am therefore announcing today measures which, together with initiatives already in train, will make available some 5,000 additional men and women for the front line units of the field Army.
"First, I am announcing that the planned strength of the Army in the mid-1990s should be
266
increased by 3,000 to 119,000. In determining how to use this additional manpower I have been influenced by two considerations. The first consideration is that it is desirable to bring up to strength a number of units which would otherwise have to be reinforced in order to undertake their peacetime operational commitments: a significant proportion of the additional manpower will be used for that purpose.
"The second consideration is that the Government attach importance to increasing the emergency tour interval towards the target of 24 months, to which we remain committed. This can best be achieved by revising the number of battalions that will be available in future. I have decided therefore to permit the retention of two further infantry battalions. There will therefore now be a total of 40 battalions (including two Gurkha) in 1998 compared with the 38 previously planned. This will have the effect of increasing the average interval between emergency tours from 15 to 17 months this year and providing an additional margin above 24 months once restructuring is complete which would make it easier to accommodate any further commitments.
"I come now to how the two additional battalions which I have identified as necessary should be provided. I have consulted the Chief of the General Staff and my other colleagues on the Army Board of the Defence Council. After considering all of the reductions currently under way or planned it is our unanimous view that the amalgamations of the Cheshire Regiment and the Staffordshire Regiment, and of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers, should not now proceed.
"The funding for this additional manpower will be met from within the financial provision announced for defence in the November 1992 autumn Statement. We are at present considering the consequences for the Armed Forces of the financial provision available. Today's announcement will make those decisions more difficult but I am in no doubt that the need to increase Army manpower is the highest priority currently facing my department.
"This leads to the second area where extra manpower will be released. As well as the increase of 3,000 in the total size of the Army, the development of detailed plans for reorganisation, and the implementation of market testing and other initiatives aimed at improving efficiency should release approximately a further 2,000 personnel, mainly from the support area, over the next few years. Some of this manpower will be available for redeployment to field army units.
"While it is important that the Armed Forces should be large enough to carry out the tasks required of them, manpower is a very expensive resource and I do not believe that it is sensible in terms of the overall defence programme and profile to view their size as permanently fixed. I will continue to keep the long-term strength of the Army under close review in the light of changing

267
circumstances. Such circumstances will include any changes to current and foreseeable operational commitments including the planned withdrawal from Hong Kong. More generally, they will also include further progress with the Government's market testing and other initiatives which should help us to reduce our requirement for service and civilian manpower across the programme. It is also important that senior commanders should have the flexibility to decide on the balance of manpower and other resources they use to meet the objectives placed on them. Finally, following the publication last year of the Open Government Document on the future use of reserves, we have yet to complete our studies of how best to integrate both regular and volunteer reservists into the post-options force structure. This too will have implications for the long-term strength of the Regular Army.
"In Options for Change we committed ourselves to an Army which is fully manned, properly supported, and well equipped. The decisions I have announced today reflect that commitment. I have arrived at these decisions only after several months of consideration with my professional military advisers. It represents a small but sensible adjustment to the planned size of the Army which will ensure that it has the flexibility and resilience it needs to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. The House will also rejoice—and there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, even though it is a half repentance, than the 99 who have been debating the matter over the past few months, trying to persuade the Government that the forces are inadequate. I take it that it is the first review of Options for Change. Indeed the language of the Statement indicates that. Perhaps there will be a second, third, fourth and fifth review as we progress and have more debates in your Lordships' House. There will be rejoicing in Cheshire, Staffordshire and Scotland over the regimental announcements.
Do not these announcements indicate that Options for Change was a fiasco? Do they not show that the policy was Treasury driven and not driven by the defence needs of the country? Does not the Statement highlight the need to have a full, comprehensive review of defence strategy and the personnel levels required by our Armed Forces? It is no good tinkering with structures and numbers of men and equipment if one does not have a clear idea of strategic needs. Should not the Government now further apologise to those service personnel who were forced to take redundancy when they left the Armed Forces because they felt that there was no future in the Armed Forces as a result of Options for Change?
Will the noble Viscount, furthermore, expand on how the announced increase in service personnel is to
268
be achieved? Can he confirm that it will be facilitated through new recruitment or by retention of personnel who have already been notified of redundancies? Will he also assure the House that the adjustments will be reflected in the Armed Forces equipment budgets? It is no good having men if they are not properly equipped.
Finally, can the noble Viscount say from where the £80 million per year—which I understand to be the cost of this change—will come? Will it come from the MOD budget? In that case, what other areas will the MOD cut in order to find the £80 million? I should be grateful if the noble Viscount, in accepting my general welcome for the Statement, could respond to the questions that I have put.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I think that my noble friends would wish me to offer moderate congratulations to the Secretary of State for his Statement but unqualified congratulations to the Defence Committee in the other place. On several occasions it pointed out the inadequacy of Options for Change: that there was no strategic thinking behind it; that it simply laid down across-the-board cuts for the services, with the Army suffering the worst.
I understand that on Tuesday the Defence Committee will report again. It will recommend increases in the Army beyond those now announced by the Government. So by happy chance the Secretary of State will have blunted its criticism by his Statement today.
I should like to ask particularly about the financial consequences. I saw that the noble Viscount nodded when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the £80 million. However, the Statement also says that it will come within the stated financial provision for the forces of last year. Therefore, cuts of £80 million are to be expected. When shall we be told about these? Where will the cuts fall?
I think that my noble friends would be happy to see those cuts, if they have to be made, falling on the Government's plans to increase expenditure on our nuclear strategic and sub-strategic weapons. Options for Change failed to foresee —so the Government now say—the increase in our United Nations commitments. But Options for Change also underrated the decline of the Soviet threat. It stated that the Soviet threat had diminished, whereas now the Soviet Union has disappeared and with it the Soviet threat of conventional attack on the West.
To spend money now to increase our strategic deterrence power so that it can penetrate the anti-ballistic missile defences of Moscow is preposterous—let alone the idea of an entirely new nuclear weapons system, the air-to-surface missile system. I think my noble friends would probably agree that, if cuts have to be made, the Government should look at this again. Once more, it comes from a failure of prediction by Options for Change and reinforces what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said: that it was a fiasco.
It results from the failure of the Government to have a proper defence review. All these points underline the need for one. They underline the point

269
often made from these Benches that we need effective forward defence planning which will fit our resources to our inevitable commitments.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome, however qualified, from both the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew. If I may pursue the biblical tone of phrase adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I repudiate the implication that the Government see themselves as a sinner who repented. Rather they were like the wise virgin; they kept open the possibility of reviewing their defence posture in the light of changing circumstances.
I have to say to both noble Lords what my right honourable friend said during the course of his Statement in another place: the main thrust of Options for Change is still there. We are talking about a relatively minor adjustment both in terms of overall operational capability and in budgetary terms.
Both noble Lords were quite correct in saying that the overall cost of what my right honourable friend announced today would be in the region of £80 million per annum. That constitutes a fraction of 1 per cent. of even the overall reduced defence budget that we are contemplating during the current long-term costing review.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and, by implication, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked from where that £80 million per annum would come. Like the rest of the defence budget, the precise balance of expenditure is, as usual—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows perfectly well—under review at this time of year. All will be revealed when we publish our Statement on the Defence Estimates. Therefore, I hope that both noble Lords will restrain themselves and their impatience until the time when, as is usual, we reveal these important matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made what I am sure your Lordships will feel is a regular plea for greater consideration of his singular views on the nuclear deterrent. I have nothing to add to what I have told him before in this respect. We are well aware that a nuclear threat still exists, that we need a nuclear deterrent and that that deterrent is a minimal one. There is no read-across, as he implies, between what my right honourable friend announced today and the overall requirement for a nuclear deterrent.
A number of other questions were raised by both noble Lords. All four battalions will remain. They will be type B battalions, which are not armed with Warrior. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, with his military experience, will know what that means.
The effect on the redundancy programme is pretty well non-existent. We do not anticipate that people who will be called upon to volunteer—indeed many of whom have already volunteered—for the second tranche of redundancy will be affected. There may be some marginal effect on the third tranche.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, drew attention to a report that we all anticipate reading from the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence which is due to appear next week. I can tell him, because I was there myself, that Ministers in the Ministry of Defence first began to reassess the need for marginal additional manpower, not in anticipation of the House of
270
Commons Defence Committee's Report, but well before the new Defence Committee was even established. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, this was a subject to which the new defence team began to address itself some months ago. I can assure the noble Lord that that was so, because I was part of the process from the very beginning.
6 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I too welcome most warmly the Statement of the noble Viscount, in as much as it at last gives proper recognition to the fact that for some time the Army has been grossly overstretched even for its ongoing and everyday commitments. Bearing in mind the glaring shortcomings to which he alluded of all peacetime establishments, particularly but not exclusively in the infantry, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is confident that the Army's authorised manpower ceiling of 119,000 under Options for Change has been raised sufficiently to support and maintain the extra battalions. If not—personally I would have hoped for double that figure, the extra 2,000 being much more problematical—we will have extra cap badges but all the units will still be inadequately manned for the job they have to do. The strain and stretch on the individual soldier will remain much as before.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as my right honourable friend and I have been saying for many months, we keep the situation constantly under review. Our assessment at the moment is that the key measure of the emergency tour plot that the noble and gallant Lord has consistently referred to during the course of interventions in this House will be enormously relieved by the postponement of the two amalgamations to which I have referred and the additional manpower that we are confident we can find from other sources, particularly the support area. We believe that, during the course of, and after, the draw-down, which he knows is much the most difficult part for the emergency tour plot, if commitments remain at their present level we shall be able to fulfil that obligation. If, on the other hand, commitments continue to increase, we are perfectly willing to look at the situation again. For the moment we are content.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will welcome the Statement by my noble friend as an indication that the Government have at last recognised what pretty well everybody else has known for at least a year—namely, that we do not have enough infantry. His statement that there is to be a marginal increase in the number of infantry must be well received. But I did hear him say—and he confirmed it in answers to questions from the other side of the House —that the funding for this would come from within the budget. Can he tell me whether there is any truth in what is written in the Daily Telegraph today—that the money will he found by taking from the Air Force a squadron of Tornados and by depriving the Royal Navy of its new helicopter carrier—a vessel which he knows better than I do the Royal Navy regards as central to its revitalised amphibious capability?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry that I may not be able to give an answer that my noble friend will find entirely satisfactory. I cannot comment on press speculation in advance of the Statement on the defence estimates. Sadly, I must ask my noble friend to contain his impatience, just as I asked noble Lords opposite to do. I emphasise that whatever the FPMG may recommend to Ministers it is no more than a recommendation and Ministers will decide. That is no reflection on the accuracy or otherwise of the report in today's Daily Telegraph.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I welcome the Statement but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place and the Minister himself has made it with tongue in cheek, bearing in mind the words in the foreword of the last defence White Paper, in which the Secretary of State said:
"The major restructuring of the armed forces which is now underway will match them to our changing defence needs to enable them to face the future with confidence".
Unfortunately for Her Majesty's Government the amalgamations and severe cutbacks coincide with a greater global demand being made on our forces. The lowering of morale through loss of individual regimental status, plus the obvious chronic overstretch, have placed the Government in an embarrassing position politically both at home and internationally. It is the numerous pressures not only from members of the Armed Forces and the chiefs of staff but also from abroad that have brought about this U-turn.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, perhaps I may ask him about the volunteer reserves and press him further on what he has said —that is, will any proposed run-down now be halted and a similar increase in their strength to that of the Army be announced? What can he say today to give them some similar satisfaction? Secondly, does he visualise any strengthening of the Royal Air Force and the Navy in the light of the increased calls being made on the United Kingdom through United Nations operations?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points. I must refute any imputation that I ever address your Lordships' House with tongue in cheek. The reverence with which I regard your Lordships precludes any such possibility. However, I must tell the noble Lord that, if he regards what my right honourable friend has announced today as a U-turn, perhaps he grossly over-estimates what has happened. What we have done is consistently to say that if we see a need for increased manpower, particularly infantry, we will reassess the situation and not hesitate to increase manpower. I believe that is an example of our consistent approach to this difficult problem.
So far as the volunteer reserves are concerned, the noble Lord knows that we are extremely sensible of the importance of the role that those reserves will play in the future order of battle under the Options for Change arrangements. The basis of Options for Change and the role that we have in mind for the reserves has not changed. I hope that he will be reassured at least so far as that is concerned.
272
As regards the strengthening or otherwise of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, this Statement addresses itself purely to manpower. If there is any change to the strength of those other two services, your Lordships will be the first to know. At the moment none is contemplated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome the Statement so far as it goes. It is a move in the direction foreseen as necessary in the debate in your Lordships' House which I initiated in November 1991. Referring to the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am sure my noble friend will be aware that, although there will be satisfaction in southern Scotland, there will not be much satisfaction in northern Scotland.
When the Government find that more infantry will be needed in the kind of world in which we find ourselves today, will they take fully into account recent rates of recruitment and retention, especially the retention of warrant officers and NCOs? That is important in providing trained and experienced forces.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and I would be the first to agree with him that the warrant officers and the NCOs of the Army are its backbone: without them the British Army would certainly not be what it is, or nearly as effective as it is. I hope that they will continue to be the backbone.
I have to say to my noble friend that the criteria which were used in choosing which battalions were to be saved from amalgamation were precisely those which were used in coming to the judgment which my right honourable friend the Member for Bridgwater came to during the Options for Change exercise. For the very same reasons that we did not expand then on what those criteria were, I should be reluctant to expand on them today.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am tempted to intervene, as a Bishop of course, in the biblical debate which has been started and perhaps to quote the words,
"if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves."
However, that is not the point of my intervention. I rise as Bishop for Chester to ask the Minister whether he is aware what pleasure the people of Cheshire will take in the Statement on two counts. First, there is their pride in the Cheshire Regiment. I think that there will be pride not only in Cheshire but in England in their marvellous performance in the former Yugoslavia and in the way they have carried out their mercy missions. They have been brilliantly led. Also the families involved will be proud: they have felt the enormous strain of the very considerable number of duties which the regiment has had to undertake.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has said. Nobody could be more delighted than I to be given another opportunity to pay tribute to the remarkable job that the Cheshire Regiment has done in Bosnia. Everything we read in the press is true as far as it goes, but the whole truth is better still. I am very sensible of the pleasure that this will give in Cheshire

273
and in the recruiting areas for the other three battalions as well. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has said, as well as for adding to the biblical nature of our discussions.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I welcome the inevitable announcement that has been made today. I hope that, following the remarks that have been made opposite, we shall not in a few months' time hear another inevitable announcement that a squadron in the RAF has been withdrawn from the front line.
In the overall reassessment that has been made of this—I presume it is too much to call it a review—has a particular investigation taken place of the number of troops in Northern Ireland? The number of soldiers in Northern Ireland matters. Without them we could not manage; but it is not numbers alone that are important and, given the increase in the RUC and what was the UDR, has a reassessment been made? Meetings took place with the Irish Government today. The Irish Government never allow co-operation between the Irish Army and the British Army on the borders. If that were to take place it would effectively reduce the need for the number of British soldiers who operate on the borders dealing with the movement of explosives. Today, as I said, there has been a meeting. I hope the opportunity was taken to raise the matter again.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the whole House knows the very considerable experience the noble Lord has both of the Province and of the RAF. So far as concerns the Army in Northern Ireland, I can assure him that the matter is kept under continuous review. He will be as well aware as I am of the fact that two additional roulement battalions are even now in Northern Ireland and that their period of service there has been extended.
As regards the talks with the Irish Government, I have not yet had the opportunity of hearing any reports of how the first day's discussions went, and I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to comment beyond saying that I hear what he says about co-operation between the British Army and the Irish Army on the frontier. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said and for his welcome of the Statement. I can only repeat what I said a moment ago to his noble friend about the strengths of the RAF and the Royal Navy and reaffirm that if there were to be any change your Lordships would be the first to know.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the £80 million that has to be found will in no way prejudice a decision on the dual site options of the Royal dockyards?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very happy to give my noble friend that assurance.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, £80 million may be only a small proportion of the whole of the defence budget but it is still not an insignificant sum. Are we to deduce from this Statement that Her Majesty's Government now acknowledge that there is no scope
274
for engaging our forces in further commitments without additional resources being made available to defence?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord knows far better than I do the importance of matching commitments to resources. That balance, as he already knows full well, is one which Her Majesty's Government keep under constant review. If that balance were to fall out of kilter, as I have already said this afternoon in your Lordships' House, defence Ministers would have no hesitation in re-examining the present balance.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I greatly welcome the news that two battalions have been saved but I hope the noble Viscount will realise that many of us think that Options for Change is really a very bad plan. We find that the essential thing about the Army is the regimental system. I marched with the British Army, with the Infantry, for 30 years and I cannot see how we can go on with the RAF Regiment. We all admire the RAF and we all know what Bomber Command did and what Fighter Command did. However, we now have three battalions of the RAF Regiment, which was founded to guard aerodromes, and really they are replacing military battalions.
Secondly, how can we go on with the Gurkhas? I had the Gurkhas with me in the 4th Armoured Brigade when they were part of the 8th Indian Division. I admire the Gurkhas enormously. Let us go on training them and keep in contact with them; but to have two Gurkha battalions on the strength of the British Army is surely very wrong. They cannot possibly fight in Northern Ireland. They cannot go to Bosnia: at least I do not think they can.
Finally, do we really want to have three naval commandos? Why can we not have just one and save some more regiments? The marine training system is terribly over-heavy and I would ask the noble Viscount to look at it again.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend has often regaled me in private with accounts of his considerable military experience. Therefore I feel it would be very far from sensible of me to engage in public debate with him on this subject. However, I can reassure him that, just as he is committed to the regimental system forming the basis of the British Army, so are Her Majesty's Government. Just as he would be extremely sorry to see this important system, which is fundamental in achieving the superior performance of British soldiers, disappear, so would Her Majesty's Government.
I have to say to my noble friend that, so far as the Gurkhas and the Commandos are concerned, they form part of the overall exercise of judgment which is still in place, much as he may regret it. That balance, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, still remains the right one for the foreseeable future. I can only repeat, as I am beginning to find myself repeating this afternoon ad nauseam, that, if we feel there is a need for change in the light of changed circumstances

275
rather than in the light of circumstances as we see them today, we shall not hesitate to look at the position again.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in spite of his welcome announcement this afternoon, the forces will still be over-stretched, bearing in mind their commitments both at home and abroad? Can he not take more seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, about a proper and necessary review of our nuclear armament? Also, would it not be as well, if we do review that, to see whether we could do with fewer than four Trident submarines and—how many is it?—900 missiles?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry if I gave the impression in any way that I do not take the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, seriously. I always listen with the greatest care to what the noble Lord says. He has his point of view, and I hope your Lordships will recognise that I have mine. I have often told noble Lords during the course of the past year that Her Majesty's Government regard their present nuclear posture as the minimum effective deterrent. Should that situation change, we shall re-examine the matter. It is our considered opinion that that is the position at the moment. So far as overstretch is concerned, I have little else to add to my answer a few moments ago to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the customary 20 minutes has now passed and I suggest that we return to the business as detailed in the Order Paper.

Legal Aid
6.20 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg rose to call attention to the proposals of the Lord Chancellor of 12th November 1992 in regard to eligibility for legal aid and to the alternative means of achieving savings proposed by the Law Society and the Bar Council; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful that so many noble Lords have elected to speak in the debate tonight. I am also grateful to the many bodies that have participated in the lobby of Parliament today. They have matched the gravity of their concerns by the quality of the papers that they have provided.
I predict that the unifying theme of this debate will be that it represents the last chance to persuade the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—our Minister of Justice, although by a more antique name —to hold back from destroying access to justice. The plea to him from this Dispatch Box tonight will be to become an advocate for justice and not for Treasury imposed cuts. The plea will be for consultation, not for haste. The plea will be to examine now, over a short period, with everybody concerned for justice (the
276
bodies that have participated in the lobby of Parliament this afternoon) the alternatives to the cuts that are now proposed.
Let us consider what is at stake. I doubt whether any of your Lordships could believe that, if the body blow to legal aid planned for 1st April is not warded off now, it will ever be undone by this Administration. I doubt whether anyone in your Lordships' House could seriously contemplate the noble and learned Lord returning to this House on some future occasion and announcing: "This Administration has now turned the economy round; the public finances are in sound order; I will be restoring the eligibility limits to the level at which they were before 1st April 1993". If that were held out as a possibility I, for one, would rather think—and in antique terms, I suppose—that "You can tell it to the marines".
The principal charge against the noble and learned Lord is that he has chosen the worst way of making savings in the legal aid budget. Eligibility cuts combined with contributions from those who are close to the income support level will in practice take close on 40 per cent. of households out of legal aid altogether.
It is to the eternal credit of the late Lord Elwyn-Jones that in 1979 the free income limit for eligibility before which applicants are not obliged to pay a contribution benefited 79 per cent. of the population. The 10 years from 1979 to 1989 saw a steady erosion in access to justice. Households eligible for legal aid declined from about 81 per cent. to 54 per cent. So 4.3 million households fell out of cover with the proportion of the eligible adult population falling from 79 per cent. to 49 per cent. The figures would be even worse if we could calculate the effect of the capital limits. During the period 1979 to 1990 households entitled to legal advice and assistance on income grounds alone fell from 70 per cent. to 44 per cent.—a fall of 15.3 million in those eligible—leaving only 39 per cent. of the adult population covered against 67 per cent. in 1979.
On 12th November, the noble and learned Lord announced his cuts to this House. In summary they are: first, to reduce the free income limit for eligibility from £3,060 per year to the equivalent of the income support level, £2,213 per year. Equivalent changes are to be made to criminal legal aid and to legal advice and assistance—the green form scheme. Secondly, the allowances against income made in respect of dependants are to be cut by 20 per cent., so that they too are to be reduced to the corresponding figures for income support. Thirdly, legal advice under the green form scheme will no longer be available for those with incomes above the free limit. Fourthly, the fraction of income above the free limit taken in contribution will be increased from one-quarter to one-third. Fifthly, and finally, contributions in civil and criminal legal aid will last for the whole length of the case instead of for one year and six months as at present.
I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord will say, so I will say it for him, "Many a mickle makes a muckle. I have to save over the next three years £43 million, then £110 million, then £173 million, and what a great prize that will be. And even after that my

277
legal aid budget will rise from an anticipated £1,107 million in the current financial year to £1,284 million in 1993–94, to £1,407 million in 1994–95, and to £1,528 million in 1995–96."
The cost of justice is rising. But politics are the language of priorities. When the noble and learned Lord replies, I hope he will tell the House what priority he gives to justice. Why is it that never before has any government reduced the free limit to the level of welfare benefits? That is what this Government are about to do.
The noble and learned Lord's plans have been generally condemned. They represent the worst conceivable way of making cuts in the legal aid budget. It is clear—I am fortified by independent commentators such as the Rowntree Foundation—that it is a pipe dream to expect those whose incomes are close to the income support level to be able to contribute to the cost of their legal aid. The effect of reducing free limits to income support level and of exacting one-third of disposable income above that level would be to make legal aid unaffordable to the great majority of those required to make a contribution. At least 37 per cent. of households which, on the Government's own figures, will either have to pay a contribution for the first time or pay a greatly increased contribution, will in practice be taken out of legal aid altogether. That is the stark reality. Do the Government accept that prediction? What are their predictions? Do they have any predictions? Can we be told what their predictions are, so that we can measure the Government's predictions against the experience of future years as it unfolds?
There was a paragraph, which I have to confess I found chilling, in the article "Paying the price of justice" by the noble and learned Lord in The Times of 22nd January. I quote:
"Here, as elsewhere, people must consider their priorities, and in particular whether proceeding with litigation, with its inevitable uncertain outcome, takes precedence over other financial demands and other ways of dealing with the problem they face".
Is that the justification for reducing our legal aid system to a rickety ambulance to pick up only the poorest of the poor? For that is the reality. The Citizen's Charter is the humbug. These cuts debase the Conservative manifesto commitment to enable people with limited means to have access to legal services and debase it to weasel words.
There has not even been a pretence at prior consultation on these cuts: not with the professional bodies, not with the voluntary sector, not with the consumer bodies, not with a single one of all the bodies that have lobbied Parliament today. Nor, as on previous occasions, has Parliament been given any opportunity to discuss the proposals in advance of the Government going firm on them. And why? I suspect because these cuts are not based and could not be justified on any rational principle other than to ensure that legal aid expenditure does not exceed the provision for legal aid set out in the Supply Estimates.
The professional bodies sought consultation. The reply last December was that questions relating to eligibility were among the issues on which the Lord Chancellor could not commit himself in advance. The
278
relevant factors were said to go far beyond the special concerns of these bodies, but they could make representations as to how the legal aid budget could be otherwise contained to the expenditure limits laid down. Those bodies did respond. They came up with a convincing package of economies for the coming year, including a voluntary freeze on legal aid pay rates at the levels established in April 1992. The reply to that offer was breathtaking. It was that the noble and learned Lord,
"had already been considering your original claim for a 7.3 per cent. increase in the rates and had arrived at the view that no increase would be appropriate in April".
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could tell us whether the public expenditure survey was really prepared on the assumption that there would be no rise in legal aid rates.
The rest of the proposed package of alternatives was designed to make economies by reducing the level of lawyer attendance in court, although the quality of justice as a result would inevitably be to a degree adversely affected. Nonetheless, that was preferable to the disaster threatened by the eligibility cuts.
It seems that the position of the noble and learned Lord is this: "I am not going to consult on these cuts in advance, not with you, nor with Parliament. I was going to freeze your rates anyway and, as far as the rest of your package goes, I have heard it discussed before and you can get on with it anyway if you like". That is no way to conduct our affairs, to debate our priorities or to develop a co-operative strategy for legal aid. I ask: has the noble and learned Lord asked the body whose duty it is to advise him on legal aid—the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid—to give him its views on his cuts, and will he inform us what its views are?
The Government are not upholding access to justice. They will not consult. They will not listen. At the same time they are denying millions their hearings in the courts. They reject out of hand serious proposals from bodies of good will. They consume us with despair.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is an irony that in November 1989 there was an announcement of a new approach to eligibility in response to figures prepared by the London School of Economics which showed that 14 million people had lost eligibility over the previous 10 years. According to the Law Society—I do not believe that its figures have been seriously challenged—the changes announced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mean that a further 14 million people will be affected.
It is perhaps a temptation to see the question of legal aid purely as a lawyer's issue, but, in his comprehensive introduction to the debate in which he set out the issues so clearly the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, rightly referred to the lobby of Parliament which has taken place today, a lobby not primarily by lawyers, but by consumers and clients.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recently spoke, in a lecture to the Royal Society of Arts, of promoting debate. Perhaps I may quote his words:

279
"One of the real problems in this area … is the difficulty of extending the discussion away from those who operate the system and opening it up to those whom the system serves".
Those whom the system serves are willing to take part in a consultation and, as has been said so clearly, they are sad that they have not been given that opportunity. They have, of course, made representations.
MIND is one of the organisations that has been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor. It tells me that in cases involving mental health tribunals 30 per cent. of applicants are more likely to be released if they are represented. That is a very stark example of the requirement for representation. MIND has taken up with the noble and learned Lord the question of ABWOR contributions and welcomes the assurances that have been given, which I hope can be given to the House, that those contributions will be dealt with in the way they are now; in other words, that they will be assessed not on an annual basis but by the solicitor at the point of advice and will therefore be achievable. If not, as the correspondence has demonstrated, those who are detained and who consider applying to mental health tribunals may have to find a sum in the order of £350. That point may be solved, but the Green Form Scheme, which is integral to the whole arrangement, will go, and that must concern us all.
We cannot help but be affected by the examples of the effects of the reductions. The introduction of community care on the same day as these changes may be introduced is an irony. Carers and users of services will be given new legal rights but almost certainly in some cases will be unable to exercise them.
Immigration is another example of which I have heard. If an immigrant's income is low enough for him to obtain legal aid, it will be too low for him to bring his spouse to this country. If he is over the limit, he will not be able to obtain the advice that he requires. It takes little imagination to understand the variety of problems, for instance, in the matrimonial area where a well-heeled husband has the means to fight a wife who has little in her own name. I did not have the imagination to realise that VAT had added £8 million to the expenditure on legal aid over the past year. I hope that we can have an assurance that that is not to be taken into account in the figures as it is a question of circulation of money.
The clock will be against all of us this evening. I do not think we shall be given extra time despite the number of words it takes to address the noble and learned Lord each time that we wish to do so. However, I must refer to a report made recently by the National Audit Office on the administration of legal aid. I do so not only because the Printed Paper Office went to such great lengths to find it for me yesterday, but because it expresses concern at the limited awareness of legal aid. If one adds to that the increasing refusal rate and the fact that applicants who may be given an offer of legal aid then find that they cannot make the contributions—contributions which will now continue for the life of the case, and a case can take years —one's concerns become greater.
280
The National Audit Office also commented, referring to a study by Wolfson College, Oxford, into the reasons for the increase in the legal aid bill:
"Almost half this increase was attributed to the extra time spent preparing cases or attending clients; and almost one quarter was attributed to increased waiting time in court".
There are other noble Lords who can speak more eloquently than I of the need to increase efficiency in the system and of the impact, for instance, of litigants in person in increasing numbers appearing in our courts.
Finally, I come to the crude point of cost benefit analysis. So many questions have been raised about the cost-effectiveness of the proposals. We must look at the inefficiencies within the system. The legal profession must look to itself, but it is not just a matter for the profession. I realise that the Woolsack must be an uncomfortable place on occasions. I appeal to the noble and learned Lord. I know that he will not want to be known merely as doing the Treasury's bidding in times which we all recognise as difficult. I am sure that he will want to be known as the defender of access to justice.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for the fact that, owing to a long-standing commitment which I cannot avoid, I have to leave shortly before the end of the debate.
We have an increasingly acute problem as to how to fund legal services for those of moderate means. The cost of legal aid has risen sharply and is forecast to exceed £1.5 billion in 1995–96. So legal aid is now 1 per cent. of public expenditure.
In one sense we can say that this is not an exorbitant price to pay for a fair system of administering justice. But in reality, with strong competition for public funds and an anxiously high level of public sector borrowing, it is quite inevitable that the Government should seek to limit expenditure. So I acknowledge that it is no easy task for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to decide where cutbacks and restrictions must come. But I have the gravest qualms about the chosen route.
In civil cases it will inevitably mean that many people will just not be able to pursue their legal rights. And it will affect them in areas of basic concern: housing, family law, immigration and claims for personal injuries. Nor is it practical to suggest that people could choose to pay substantial contributions to litigate at the expense of meeting other basic needs. Many will quite simply be priced out of the market. But the market out of which they will be priced is the market for justice.
In criminal cases the cuts will lead either to courts disregarding, as I suspect they might, the prescribed contribution levels or to a significant increase in the number of unrepresented defendants. Either approach is unsatisfactory.
We would all, I suspect, subscribe without hesitation to the principle that everyone should have a fair right of defending themselves in court. We would all, I think, recognise that legal rights which are incapable of enforcement are illusory. I am glad that we made our manifesto commitment to enabling

281
people of limited means to have access to justice. I hope that we will stand by it. I once heard an American bishop say, when preaching a sermon to the Supreme Court of the United States:
"Society either defends across the board, or it ceases to be civilised".
It is because I believe that our society and government strive to be civilised that I hope every conceivable alternative will be explored before these cuts are put into effect. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for receiving a number of us last week to urge on him the damage that would be done by these cuts and the importance of considering alternatives. It was clearly helpful that at this meeting he expressed the willingness of his officials to debate with the Law Society in detail other ways of making the required savings.
I know that the Lord Chancellor has expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the package which the Law Society, with the concurrence of the Bar Council, has so far proposed. I can only hope that his officials will look positively and imaginatively at these and other measures. We must not be afraid to think radically as to how to make legal services less expensive. There is still waste in the law, a point alluded to by the previous speaker. In the criminal courts there is scope for improved listing and for dealing with unopposed adjournments and committals with reduced attendance by lawyers. These steps are generally accepted to be sensible. It is so much more preferable to accelerate them than to cut off people from access to the courts.
But I believe that we must be prepared to be far more radical in our whole approach to legal procedures. Urgent work is needed on civil procedures. There is a strong case for extending the small claims jurisdiction to £5,000. I suspect that my noble and learned friend is not out of sympathy with that idea. In larger cases, trial judges should be asked to take immediate control of the case as soon as proceedings are issued. They should be given a mandate to ensure that the machinery for bringing any particular case to trial keeps costs firmly in proportion to the sum at stake. They should also be encouraged to promote alternative dispute resolution. It is no good our legal system seeking to be scrupulously fair if it is not cost-effective and if people cannot afford to use it.
In the matrimonial field, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has himself expressed the view that mediation and conciliation should replace adversarial litigation. This has been welcomed by very many of great experience in this area. But it will be an idle aspiration without resources being channelled to counselling and mediation. The proposed cuts in eligibility will lessen the opportunity for people to take advantage of existing pilot services.
The whole issue of funding legal services is intractable and is becoming ever more urgent. We must seek to tackle it on a broad, coherent basis. Is it not time that the law centres, which give a quite invaluable service, were drawn into the legal aid scheme as part of the overall provision of service? Is it not time that the contingency Legal Aid Fund,
282
which we at Justice have been advocating for many years and which we raised yet again recently with the Lord Chancellor's Department, should be established? Is it not possible for the Government to play a part in more widely promoting schemes of legal expenses insurance?
The entire profession—government, judiciary, barristers and solicitors—has a duty to tackle the problem of costs on a co-operative and not a confrontational basis. I sense that the profession is willing to play its part. So, too, are some extremely impressive, able and dedicated consumer groups. I hope that the Government will reach out to them and will join them in this work constructively. It is vital to avoid these cuts.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, I recognise that the marked increase in the cost of legal aid and the prospect of even greater increases require some curbs to be imposed. I also understand the difficulties of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in finding some acceptable way of keeping the expenditure within bounds. But I have to say that to proceed as he proposes by cutting eligibility is wrong in principle.
Broadly speaking, there are two possible approaches: to cut eligibility or to spread the available fund less generously. The first course no doubt has the advantage of simplicity. It is easy and cheap to administer since little monitoring is required. But it involves, in my view, an abdication of responsibility to a large section of those for whom the legal aid scheme was devised. Even before these draconian cuts were proposed, there had been a gradual decline in the proportion of our citizenry entitled to legal aid. Now, at a stroke, it is proposed to reduce dramatically the numbers eligible. The Government's own estimate is that 37 per cent. of households will be affected. There is concern not only for those who will become totally disentitled but for those whose required and increased contribution will effectively put them out of court even though they are technically eligible for assistance. I consider that not only deplorable but a surprising proposal from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
It will be recalled that the principle on which the Courts and Legal Services Bill was said to be based was greater access to justice. The Lord Chancellor may not have achieved a wholly unopposed passage of that Bill, but time and again he justified it by the principle of access to justice. He won much praise from the media and the public on that account. Now we find that under some financial pressure the first thing to go is access to justice. The large band in our community who will become ineligible for legal aid under these proposals will effectively have either no access to the courts or access only as litigants in person. Those who, with legal aid, would have pursued their cases or defended those brought against them but would not do so unaided will quite simply have been denied justice.
What of those who proceed as litigants in person? Experience shows that so far from saving overall costs

283
by denying legal aid, costs may be incurred which legal aid would have avoided. There are many cases in which a litigant in person ploughs on when legal advice would have persuaded him that he had no case. He is likely to take more of the court's time partly because he may have difficulty in presenting his case intelligibly and partly because the court needs to be more indulgent to him in case there is some point that he has not been able to articulate. The Master of the Rolls tells me that already about 20 per cent. of the sitting time in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is taken up by litigants in person.
I turn now to the second principle on which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack presented the Courts and Legal Services Bill for which again he received much praise. The principle was increased competition for the provision of legal services. His idea was that the more providers of legal services there were, the better and the cheaper the service would be to the public. But now the effect of those substantial reductions in legal aid eligibility and of the franchising proposals will inevitably be to cut competition. There are many firms of solicitors, and especially those whose partners have a social conscience as well as a law degree, whose practices primarily serve those eligible for legal aid in their locality. There is a risk that these proposals will make their type of practice unsustainable. They will go to the wall and only larger and less accessible firms will be able to take on legal aid work.
I am well aware that any plea based on the prospect of lawyers losing out is usually treated with derision, if not glee. But I am not talking about the fat cats with corporate clients. Quite the contrary; I am concerned about those modest firms which cater for the less privileged members of society.
What then is the alternative to cutting eligibility? The Bar and the Law Society, as has already been mentioned, have put forward measures which would achieve substantial savings. It is true that they would involve a less satisfactory service being provided, but a second-class carriage is better than no transport at all. It is also true that the savings their measures would effect have not been quantified and it may even be that they would fall short of the savings necessary. Nevertheless, I would earnestly urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to pause and give these measures full consideration.
I strongly believe that there are also other cost-cutting measures which could be considered short of slashing eligibility. A review of the remuneration rates may well reveal methods of reducing over-expenditure and giving incentives to expedition rather than the reverse. It was with those considerations in mind that the Master of the Rolls and I wrote jointly to the Lord Chancellor last week asking him to explore all other methods of controlling the escalation of legal aid expenditure rather than proceeding with his present proposals. I urge him again to do so.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall be singing rather a different song. I do not want to speak about legal aid specifically, but about one possible way forward which would reduce the very high costs of legal aid which are alarming the noble and learned Lord. I am speaking of Mediation UK and the community mediation schemes that are now functioning in a number of our towns and cities.
Mediation is based on the principle that negotiation between two parties often works better when there is a neutral, non-coercive third party to be responsible for the procedure and ground rules and, if necessary, to guide the discussion. But the content of the discussion remains the disputants. They are asked to begin by agreeing to basic ground rules but, unlike arbitration, they do not agree to be bound by the third party's decision. Mediators have no powers and as far as possible they get the parties themselves to put forward solutions based on their interests not their positions.
Mediation can be used for quite serious and complex disputes, but it works best before positions become entrenched. The position is the opposite of that of the courts. It is not adversarial, it is conciliatory. It works on the principle that both sides win about 90 per cent. of what they want rather than one winning and the other losing. There is a better chance that they will be, if not friends, at least on speaking terms at the end of the affair. Mediators act for both parties, which lawyers are not allowed to do.
Mediation can take place in various contexts—indeed in, almost any context—where it is in the interests of both sides to settle. Disputes between neighbours, whether about noise, children, animals, gardens, parties or whatever and victim/offender relationships are the kinds of contexts in which mediation can take place; of course, there is also matrimonial conciliation. There may be agreements on custody and access to children. The hope is to prevent a case coming to court.
Perhaps I may give an example. A couple newly retired from the Army claimed that plants on an overhead balcony were dirtying their windows and that the plants' actress owner was muddying the shared hall as she came in from jogging. Lifestyle incomprehension was diagnosed. Solution: plants trimmed and clean shoes left in the hall in return for no radio-playing when the couple got up at 7 a.m.
The mediators are generally volunteers specifically recruited and trained by the community schemes themselves which will employ certain paid staff, perhaps two. Before they start to work on cases the volunteers will undergo training. Referrals come from the parties themselves, from community agencies like citizens advice bureaux, statutory agencies such as housing and environmental health departments, the police or solicitors. Most of the cases are potential subjects for civil litigation. Many involve violence, harassment, damage or verbal abuse which can result in criminal prosecution.
There has now been about eight years' experience of such schemes in this country, but longer abroad. There are about 30 community mediation schemes

285
working across Britain at the moment. Where a scheme is started by a particular agency such as a local authority—MEND in Hammersmith and Fulham is an example—there is a slightly more professional type of community mediation involved, but there still exists steering committees of volunteers and the mediation is carried out by local lay volunteers so that the differences between the two systems are minimal. They all belong to the same umbrella organisation, Mediation UK. There is no doubt that the cost is infinitely less than it would be if the cases went to court. The funding is from charitable trusts, local authority donations, central government programmes like Urban Aid or Save the Cities, and often by a combination of all such funding.
The advantages of these schemes over the juridical processes are many. The most important is that it leads to a better outcome which is more forward looking, preventive of further trouble and able to deal with issues ranging beyond the immediate legal claim. They also encourage collaboration rather than opposition and educate people in the skills of peaceful negotiation and attitudes of tolerance.
I was anxious to speak in today's debate to seek some pronouncement from the noble and learned Lord on his commitment to these schemes and to learn whether he is willing to encourage them and to provide some funds for that purpose. He has given some encouragement. In May 1991 in a lecture to the Association of Law Teachers, and in July last year when he spoke at the Royal Society of Arts, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, the noble and learned Lord recognised that adversarial litigation, with its cost, delay, complexity and stress was not necessarily the best way to resolve disputes. He suggested that the state had a role in funding alternatives to litigation and that officials would devise gateways or tests through which people would be channelled towards the most appropriate method, such as mediation, for their specific problem.
We recognise that not all cases are suitable for mediation, but enough of them could be diverted to it to take quite a chunk of work from the courts. Research and routine monitoring show a higher rate of satisfaction among civil disputants. I should like to stress the need to spend a small amount of money in order to make these greater savings. The noble and learned Lord may be reluctant to commit himself to funding local services at once while the idea is relatively new (although there has been eight years' experience of it) but that is a longer term aim. For the present, will he back up the favourable statements that he has made by funding development and training workers for Mediation UK, for which there is a great demand? Will he also fund two or three local projects, with research, to allow the idea to prove itself? I hope that he can give a favourable response to this plea when he responds to the debate.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as a retired practitioner, I speak in this debate only to express my sense of outrage at the proposed
286
unprincipled destruction of our painstakingly constructed system of aided access to justice in England and Wales. Every lawyer here today has over the years made his or her contribution to this system—and why? It is because, surprisingly to the cynics—and there are some in this House—we have two clear beliefs: first, that the ultimate guarantee of the citizens' human rights and individual liberties is the availability of the independent lawyer, and secondly, that the first casualty in any authoritarian regime is that individual lawyer. He can be removed by persecution or state control but also, in a more subtle way, by controlling his remuneration and his pattern of work so that he can no longer operate. Ultimately, the struggle for human rights is conducted in the courts where the citizen seeks justice, above all in the magistrates' and Crown courts and then in the High Court when seeking judicial review.
Our determination has always been, as in the National Health Service, that access should be to the best, not to the worst, service, and that all lawyers covering cases (of infinite variety) should contribute, remunerated strictly on the basis, properly monitored, of work actually and reasonably done. Now, at a stroke, the Lord Chancellor intends to destroy all that and, unbelievably, to abolish the Green Form advice eligibility so that defendants will be forced to defend themselves against an always-represented prosecution, resulting inevitably in many a false plea of guilty and, I fear, in many a miscarriage of justice.
Those getting a lawyer will find an advocate receiving a standard fee—a fee set unilaterally by the noble and learned Lord himself and at a level that can only just attract the least able, least conscientious and least experienced advocate. It is a fee that takes no account of the length or complexity of the case, of its preparation or of the difficulty or otherwise of the law applicable. It is a staggering return to the days of my studentship.
Of course, legal aid is demand led. The bill for it has increased, as it has for the prisons and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the noble and learned Lord resolutely refuses to find out why this is so. A Law Society survey found that 25 per cent. of the increase is due to the incompetent listing procedures, for which the noble and learned Lord is himself responsible. Obviously, there are other reasons, such as the extension of a defendant's rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the duty solicitor scheme, the tape recording of interviews, the pre-trial reviews, the increasing complexity of new offences and the incidence of long fraud cases. But even now it accounts for less than 1 per cent. of public expenditure. Is that too much for the very basis of our free democracy? It is far less than the £2 billion to £3 billion that was lost in one day in the incompetence of Black Wednesday.
Already I am told that a circular has been issued stating that community sentences are not to be regarded as involving a deprivation of liberty justifying the granting of legal aid. If true, that is a monstrous instruction. The purpose of those sentences is to replace imprisonment by a penalty demanding significant restrictions on personal liberty. One must

287
ask: can it be proper (in a system based on judicial independence) for access to justice to be subject to such blatant and unilateral executive control?
Here in the Chamber we have a remarkable attendance of lawyers sharing a proven passion for justice and access. No fewer than three who have held the position of chairman of the Bar Council are present, each with long experience of assistive representation in the magistrates' and Crown courts. How is it that the noble and learned Lord, who has no such experience, continues to follow a course of confrontation, losing thereby the enormous goodwill of the profession? How is it that we have the spectacle of the new Lord Chief Justice coming to this House publicly to plead for sufficient judges to allow the scandalous queue of citizens seeking judicial review to have the justice they demand? How is it that today we hear that noble and learned Lord describe the Lord Chancellor's proposals as deplorable?
When the notorious Green Papers appeared four years ago, I expressed my suspicion that the hidden agenda was to clear the criminal courts of the independent lawyer. These proposals, I fear, will achieve just that. If the noble and learned Lord's ultimate aim is the creation of a system of salaried public defenders to mirror the state prosecution of the CPS, it would be fairer and franker to say so now. I invite the noble and learned Lord to do just that and to enable those whose practices are founded on the promotion of human rights to take their skills and their concern elsewhere.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, until I read these proposals with regard to legal aid and, above all, until I appreciated what their consequences would be on the ground, I never for one moment thought that it would be necessary to say in your Lordships' House that justice is not an optional extra in a society which is based upon the rule of law. But I feel that that point has to be made for justice lies at the root of internal law and order just as defence forces lie at the root of external law and order. That is not, of course, to say that justice cannot be achieved in more than one way, but whatever way is chosen it must ensure universal access to the courts of law.
It so happens that we have chosen to base our system of justice, which has existed over several centuries, upon a partnership—a partnership between the practising legal professions on the one side and the courts and the court service on the other. It has proved remarkably cost-effective. But we need to recognise what we have been doing. We have been allowing, and indeed encouraging, lawyers, mostly at the expense of the private client, but not exclusively, to do part of the work which it is for the courts to do or see that it is done. If we are to abandon that approach over a wide segment of disputes, then we have to look elsewhere for a method whereby that fundamental duty of government to provide justice can be discharged.
One way,—highly inefficient—would be to produce a large number of extra judges and a large number of court officials and to rejig all the procedural rules so
288
that the courts were operable—if I might use that word—by any litigant of reasonable intelligence and fortitude in person. I cannot believe that the Government would propose to do that. We could of course, as I hope will happen anyway, follow up the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. In fact they are being followed up. Efforts are being made to streamline courts and processes. But unless and until that makes the presence of lawyers unnecessary over the fields about which we are talking today, any denial of an opportunity of having legal advice and representation amounts to a denial of justice itself.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, talked about mediation. I am sure that we are all supporters of mediation, provided that there is a reasonable chance that it will avoid subsequent litigation. But mediation is not the direct and fundamental responsibility of government. That is to provide justice in the sense of decisions which bind the parties to a dispute.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give serious consideration to the alternative package suggested by the practising professions. It may or may not entirely balance out as a matter of figures, but it is remarkable for the fact that the lawyers are saying, "Give us a pay freeze." That is not in their interests, but in the interests of their clients. That point should be emphasised. It is something which should be examined with care.
Perhaps I may make two other points of a slightly different nature. We have here a new contribution rule. Let me say at once that the old rule whereby one contributed what one could over a period of a year, and six months in the case of criminal legal aid, seemed to me to be the most complete nonsense I had ever heard. Everyone except the very poorest in the land has not the slightest hesitation in going out and making a hire purchase contract which extends over three or even five years. Why should it be in any way different in the context of legal aid? But then the Government come forward with this incredible proposition that one contributes to legal aid over the duration of the case. What on earth has that to do with the litigant's ability to pay, or indeed a moral or any other obligation to pay? I doubt whether the department has sufficiently thought out what that could mean in some cases. One might have a gentleman with a very urgent case which may affect others and which has to be dealt with by judicial review. He obtains legal aid. He applies for leave and is given it instantly. Such is the urgency that the court says, "Right, we will hear this case tomorrow." There is no question of a minimum of a year here. He should, with a bit of luck, be able to get away with a £5 contribution. The thing is absurd.
On the other side of the coin, a case which does not have that degree of urgency—it may have no degree of urgency —may wait about, I regret to say, for years. Is it to be said that that assisted litigant has to pay far more because of the delays that have occurred?
I have one last point—I appreciate the constraints of time. There is not one word in the proposals which recognises the real advantage of being within the Legal Aid Scheme, whatever one's contribution, when it

289
comes to the other side's costs. The legally assisted litigant is protected from having to pay the other side any more than is just and equitable. The proposals take that protection away from that part of the population which falls outside the scope of legal aid. It would cost the Lord Chancellor nothing to extend the protected provisions of legal aid upwards as indeed should be done.
In the debate on 17th November at cols. 590–591 of the Official Report, I made the same point. The noble and learned Lord, at col. 610, and I summarise, said that the courts have a discretion. They should exercise that discretion. With the greatest respect—I say it with sorrow—that does not represent the law of England. The courts indeed have a discretion, but it is one that has to be exercised judicially. There is no authority whatever for the proposition that when awarding costs against an unsuccessful litigant one is entitled to have any regard as to his means to pay. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants that alteration, as I do, then he must procure a change to the rules.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor realises it or not from the speeches that have been made, perhaps I may say—I believe that it will have general acclaim—that he is happily possessed of a mind which is the admiration of us all. A mind which is also receptive to change and persuasion would have the greatest admiration of Members of the House, wherever they may sit. My effort this evening will be directed towards persuading him that he has such a mind.
Perhaps I may put this into the context of a seven-minute limit. It is a good idea, in my view, to concentrate on at least one issue. To me, that issue is the Green Form Scheme. I wonder whether your Lordships realise what the purported change is. It is that anyone with earnings over £60 per week will no longer have the benefit of that scheme. We are therefore taking out everyone but the utmost poverty-stricken of our citizens from a benefit which has been superb for goodness knows how many thousands of people, many of them illiterate, wandering around not knowing how to equate some of their problems with a possible remedy at law. Many of them are wives who are perplexed over a marital problem and they just want to discuss what their rights may be. Your Lordships will readily realise that those problems often involve children.
The lawyers have been able and willing to give preliminary advice which has so often helped to solve the problem completely. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord realises that very often solicitors are advising under the Green Form Scheme on how to fill out an application for legal aid. If these proposals take effect that will be denied to anybody who happens to earn, under the calculations of the Legal Aid Scheme, more than £60 per week.
Where do I think—I ask this with the deepest respect—that the noble and learned Lord has gone wrong? Obviously from the speeches that have been made this evening he will realise that there is general
290
criticism in this House of his taking eligibility as the way to save money. First, I shall ask him not to impose upon our people the destruction of the Green Form Scheme, which I believe will mean a saving of some £11 million per year. I hope that we achieve more than that, but if we can maintain the present position of the Green Form Scheme some use will have been made of this debate and to the delight of us all the noble and learned Lord will have shown some flexibility of mind.
I believe, as others have said, that the other thing which the noble and learned Lord has done—I say this with the deepest respect—which is wrong is not to look at the whole question of advice as it is now given to our citizens whose means do not enable them to go to private lawyers and pay private lawyers' fees.
We have said before in this House that there are institutions which have done a tremendous amount of work and are prepared to continue doing it; namely, the citizens advice bureaux and the law centres. Nobody has got those organisations together with the Law Society and the Bar Council to say, "All right, if there must be economies, perhaps we can fulfil a service, but for heaven's sake look at the problem broadly and see to it that we, the CABs and the law centres, are properly funded". At the very time when, among other proposals that the noble and learned Lord makes, the Green Form Scheme is to go, citizens advice bureaux are closing down throughout the land because of lack of funds and because the local authorities do not have the grants which enable them to pass on those funds. Law centres are similarly affected. I do not wish to use exaggerated language but it is crazy to look at the matter piecemeal rather than as a whole.
In my final minute I turn to the package which has been offered. I emphasise that it is a package which from the lawyer's point of view does not give them any advantage whatever. In fact, it imposes a willing sacrifice which they are prepared to make. People should sit around a table rather than have a confrontational debate. Even at this moment the Law Society and the Bar Council, with the officials of all three organisations, should be determined to do one thing; that is, to save the legal aid which is now being destroyed. I wish that my friend and a friend of nearly everybody in this House, Lord Elwyn-Jones, were here to make a speech with regard to the defence of a matter which was his life's work.
7.25 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Machiavelli once remarked that two things are essential to a state: good laws and good armies. We have just heard the Government think the better of a Treasury driven attempt to reduce the supply of one. I hope that we may look forward to hearing the Government think the better of a Treasury driven attempt to reduce access to the other.
As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, this debate is about priorities. I find it very difficult to think of priorities which could be higher. As everyone

291
here has occasion to know, allegiance is according to law. If we weaken respect for the law, we must be putting a strain on allegiance.
If we are to have respect for the law, it is not enough to think of it as something which comes down from Mount Sinai. That is a divine and not a human pattern of legislation. To have affection for the law and allegiance to it we need to think of it as something to which we may derive some benefit. That means that we need to have access to it and we need to think of turning to it for remedies.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said in a very important debate on 17th November, it is necessary that people should learn to think of the law as their friend. It underlines the importance of that point but he was making it in defence of a law centre in Toxteth, Liverpool.
The need for legal aid has increased with the number of laws. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, the number of laws has recently increased considerably. If you are to appreciate the importance of legal aid, you need to look at the fear and bewilderment on the face of an innocent defendant facing a criminal charge. The law is extremely technical and sometimes arcane. People need help to understand it. You do not realise how important those technicalities are until you see a serious criminal case being handled by someone who has no training in the law. You then understand it very well indeed.
There is a danger to people who have no legal aid. We have heard a great deal recently—more than I should have liked —about miscarriages of justice. I cannot believe that leaving people without the assistance of the law would do other than increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. There is clearly a mistake here about affordability. This Government have a tendency to underestimate the amount that can be spent from the public purse. Equally, they overestimate the amount that can be spent from the private purse. It is not inexhaustible.
What shall we have instead if we do not have legal aid? The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has said that a great deal of extra work will come its way. That is undoubtedly true. If it is to do that work properly, it will cost money. The savings would be diminished. A great many people who are in the position of advising others, of whom I am one and I should declare an interest, will find a vast amount of work coming to them which they deal with at present by saying, "What you need is a good lawyer". That happens often in the course of a professional life. If you cannot refer people to a good lawyer, you have to try to advise them yourself and you will not do that nearly as well. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, said, that will take more of the court's time and that will cost money.
We agree entirely on these Benches with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the vital importance of the green form. When we are considering miscarriages of justice we should consider the cost of imprisonment which, as we are often reminded, is considerable. I should like to know how
292
many mistaken imprisonments a year it takes to use up all the saving which the noble and learned Lord hopes to achieve by these measures. He hopes to save £173 million. That, I admit, is serious money but it is not very serious money. It does not need a great deal to go wrong to wipe out that saving altogether.
When the noble and learned Lord considers the proposals from the Law Society I hope he will not respond in the way of the famous professor at the University of London who once said, "This proposal originates with the teachers of the subject, which I regard as most improper". I shall leave the House with the words of Magna Charta:
"To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice".
I know that was always an aspiration, but I hope it is not an aspiration which has been abandoned.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for this opportunity to debate an important issue. I ought as a second point to acknowledge that the noble Lord and others of your Lordships are infinitely better equipped than I to understand and debate both the legal processes and the financial convolutions of the legal aid system, even though I am wearing the right tie. I have heard the legal aid system described as one designed to give ordinary folk who do not understand the complexities of modern life free access to lawyers who do not understand them either but who can at least talk about them elegantly.
I must apologise for having to appear twice nightly today. That is something I have not done since 1950. I am appearing twice today because the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is a previous chairman of MENCAP and a lawyer to boot with all the relevant experience, unfortunately has a previous engagement.
In my blacker moments I wonder why people with learning disabilities should need lawyers when they have so few legally enforceable rights. However, that is a rights debate to be renewed on another occasion. A more positive approach is to recognise that the unceasing flow of legislation about employment, training, social services, education, health care and other matters offers people with disabilities opportunities which can be converted into rights. This is a process which, in an era of tight restraints on public expenditure—and I fear some prejudice—sometimes requires access to legal advice and legal processes.
My colleagues in MENCAP did some homework for me and I make this speech secure in the knowledge that I have been well briefed. However, I am conscious that those colleagues had surprising difficulty finding out just what the new rules are. We are getting close to the change and such details as who will qualify and who will not seem at the moment not to be wholly clear; and what is beginning to be clear is not yet wholly logical.
As I understand it, people on income support—including the extra income support paid to people with disabilities—will retain entitlement to the full benefits of legal aid. The more severely disabled who have disability benefits in addition to income support

293
seem to me to be more at risk. For simplicity I shall use the old benefits terminology. Those getting mobility allowance because they cannot walk, or have comparable difficulties in getting around, will have that mobility help ignored, as indeed they should. The extra money was intended, after all, for the extra costs of mobility, not for paying lawyers' bills.
Those with attendance allowance—again I use the old terminology—because they need constant supervision or care are not, it seems, protected where advice under the Green Form Scheme is concerned. I hope that this is a misunderstanding on my part or a mistake on the part of those devising the rules. I can see no conceivable justification for seizing the care benefit of someone severely enough disabled to need that care in order to pay the bill for advice about that person's slender rights.
I shall illustrate that point. Michael gets attendance allowance. He cannot lift a spoon to his lips, drink from an ordinary cup, hold onto someone when they lift him, sit in an ordinary chair, wipe his nose or cough to clear his throat. He needs, in addition, a great deal of personal care in relation to all those very private processes which most of us for most of the time carry out in private and think nothing about. Another young man whom I shall call Alvin also has attendance allowance. His condition severely affects his behaviour and while physically capable of many everyday activities he needs constant supervision or the simplest of processes and encounters can turn into disaster. Are people such as Michael and Alvin to be told that they have to choose between care and legal advice because they cannot have both? They would not understand that, but neither would I; nor, I suspect, would many of your Lordships.
The logic of disregarding attendance allowance seems to me absolute. However, and lest I am faced with the cake argument in relation to the bread of green form legal advice, let me add that there is no way that local advice centres and national voluntary bodies could fill the gap left by the diminution of legal aid. Local centres are cutting back and closing. National voluntary bodies are having to consider priorities and that may well reduce their ability to maintain that scratching-at-the-surface of legal and related advice which they at present manage.
If it does not sound too dramatic, I propose to finish by saying that I am asking for justice. We have heard that word today on several occasions. There is a price to pay for that, but the price should be paid by those who can afford it and not by those who cannot.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I declare my personal interest as a member of the Bar in practice almost exclusively in what Horace Rumpole describes as,
"the bargain basement of the law where barristers live high on the hog on the rich pickings of the legal aid system".
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for providing the House with an opportunity which would otherwise have been denied to Parliament by this Government; namely, a chance to discuss these proposals which are of direct concern not just to
294
lawyers but to some 14 million adults who are likely to be directly affected by them. It is quite extraordinary for such far-reaching changes to have been announced with no prior consultation with the profession or other interested bodies and no debate in Parliament until now.
What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposed on 12th November of last year is not just a cost cutting exercise to make financial savings such as other government departments are being required to make and which we all unhappily accept are necessary in the economic mess in which we find ourselves. These are proposals which strike at the heart of the Legal Aid Scheme and go to its underlying principle that no citizen shall be denied access to justice because he or she is unable to afford the cost of his case. That principle, however imperfectly it operated in practice, was one to which until 12th November of last year most of us believed this Government were committed.
Just as it must surely be one of the hallmarks of a civilised society that its citizens have access to necessary medical treatment regardless of ability to pay, is it not also the mark of a civilised society and a just one that all its citizens have access to the law? These proposals, if implemented, would change the Legal Aid Scheme from one which tries to provide that access to one in which help is available only to the very poorest in the community. The proposed changes in eligibility in effect render legal aid unaffordable to a large proportion of those with incomes above the level of income support who now qualify—those, as I understand it, with a disposable income of over £43 per week.
On the present eligibility limit, the figures in the review of eligibility of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor published as recently as 1991 show that approximately 20 per cent. of those offered legal aid subject to a contribution turn it down. They do so because they are unable to afford the contribution. If these proposals are introduced that percentage must rise dramatically. A substantial number of people will without question be unable to afford the new contributions, especially as they will no longer be limited by time as at present but will continue throughout the case.
To offer legal aid subject to a contribution which cannot be met is to offer nothing. The madness of these proposals—I think that that is not too strong a word—is apparent to anyone who practises today in legal aid litigation. Because this debate is limited in time, and with so many with expert knowledge still to speak, as a legal aid practitioner I select just two examples of that madness.
Legal aid under the Green Form Scheme would, as I understand it, no longer be available for those with incomes above the free limit. That scheme is one of the most cost-effective areas of the whole of the legal aid system. Advice given by high street solicitors often knocks on the head at an early stage proposed litigation which has no prospect of success. It also resolves disputes by early and effective advice in matters which would otherwise drift into actual litigation, with consequent costs in time, money and

295
court time. Above all else, it avoids a great deal of human misery. It is a particularly effective scheme because many solicitors today do work over and above the limit which is permitted and for which they never hope, expect or indeed do receive remuneration. What the proposed change means, quite simply, is cases going to court on matters which could have been dealt with out of court with the help of short, swift and inexpensive legal advice at the outset and, alternatively, that wrongs will go unrighted.
Secondly, the proposals mean that many people who know that they cannot afford to contribute will be discouraged from applying for legal aid at all. Others who are granted conditional legal aid will find themselves unable to keep up contributions and have their certificates revoked and their representation withdrawn, with consequent delays and waste of time and money. It also means, above all, more litigants having to represent themselves.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has forgotten his early days at the Bar. He must have sat in court listening to cases while waiting for his own to come on. Most of us have. He must surely have seen inarticulate, sometimes ill-educated, largely unprepared and almost always frightened or anxious and ill-at-ease litigants in person struggling to present a case against a qualified and properly-briefed opponent. No matter how hard the magistrate or judge has tried to ensure fair play, were there not occasions when he, too, longed to get up and help, to point out the strengths in a good case which was floundering because of the lack of proper presentation and legal knowledge? If the noble and learned Lord has never had such an experience he must be unusual. After April 1993, if his proposals are adopted, experiences like that will, I suspect, become commonplace.
The reality is that those who cannot pay but do not qualify for full legal aid will face a stark choice. Either they will be denied access to the courts or they must represent themselves, usually at a disadvantage, against a qualified barrister or solicitor on the other side.
A way has to be found to save money. We all accept that. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to think of a way of inflicting more permanent damage on the legal aid system than these eligibility proposals will cause.
I am conscious that every moment that I speak I prevent another speaking for his full allocation of time. Therefore, I simply say that the profession has come up with serious and hard-hitting suggestions which, although they cause great anxiety to those of us who practise in this field, must surely be better than the alternatives which are proposed by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that he will listen and will reconsider. If he will not I am afraid that that will demonstrate that all that has been said by this Government about their concern for service to the public and with the Citizen's Charter philosophy will be exposed as a sham.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have been told that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but better still to catch her up. Having just done the former I look forward to doing the latter.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the following facts. The principle adopted by the Rushcliffe Committee and subsequently accepted by Parliament as long ago as 1949 was that legal aid should be directed both to the poor and those of moderate means. Secondly, some 34 years later—nearly 10 years ago—the Government, in their written response to the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services—the Benson Commission—(Cmnd. 9077) remained consistent in their approach. They said:
"legal aid should be available to assist those of small or moderate means, by giving them the same chance to pursue or defend their legal rights as those in a position to instruct lawyers privately; provided that it has been shown that there are reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending the right in question".
Thirdly, some three years ago at the Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the
"keynote is to improve access to justice for all who need it".
He identified three elements, and expressed the relevant one in these terms:
"an efficient and effective scheme to make public funds available to those who need legal services and cannot meet the cost themselves".—[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 122.]
Fourthly, last year the Government's manifesto stated that the party was committed:
"to enabling people with limited means to have access to justice".
However, last week in answer to a starred Question by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble and learned friend dramatically downgraded that formula. He said that he believed that the package that he had announced in November represented:
"the most certain means of achieving the necessary control, while at the same time protecting the position of the poorest in society".—[Official Report, 26/1/93; col. 1136].
Thus, although having a reasonable ground for pursuing or defending a right of action, there must now exit those of small means, those of moderate means and even the poor unless they come under the heading of the poorest in society. "Oh what a falling off was there!"
Reality of course must be faced. I agree, as I am sure will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with the following observation contained in paragraph 12.26 of the Benson Commission Report:
"The public funding available for legal services depends on the financial resources which the government of the day is in a position to allocate to them in the face of competing demands such as education, health, defence and many others".
It continued in the following paragraph:
"We emphasise that if there is to be proper provision for legal services in future and balanced decisions are to be made a regular flow of information concerning needs and the estimated cost of different options will be required. It will be necessary for the operation of the publicly-funded legal services to be constantly monitored and there should be a continuing programme of research into these subjects".

297
From what has been said it appears that my noble and learned friend has failed signally in carrying out that advice. There is one option available to him at present which apparently is in receipt of very trite consideration.
I accept that my noble and learned friend is anxious this year to save about £43 million, a not inconsiderable sum. However, I suggest that we must keep it in perspective. After all, the Government are contemplating spending more than £36 million on prosecuting under that strange piece of legislation, the War Crimes Act, men over 70 in respect of offences allegedly committed over 50 years ago.
I have once earlier this week expressed with diffidence the view that in the Asylum Bill the Government were suffering from forensic myopia by not considering the impact of their proposals in producing an appellate process that would merely add to the demand on resources. I suggest that that is exactly what is occurring in the current proposals. Defendants in criminal cases have no alternative but to go to court. They are taken there by the prosecution. If they do not qualify for legal aid—and most of them will not—then they go unrepresented. So do defendants taken to court in civil cases. That will clog up the work of the court staff. It will clog up the work of the courts. It will extend trials enormously. Valuable resources now in short supply will again be under the most impossible pressure.
I urge my noble and learned friend to think again. I urge him on this occasion to think more far-sightedly, because without vision the legal aid system, referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning in the first debate in which I took part in 1986 as the most formidable product of legal reform in his time, is bound to perish.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am one of those people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was referring. I am one whom the system was designed to serve. It will be no surprise to your Lordships to know that I have been on legal aid for two-and-a-half years. I am still on legal aid and I expect that to continue for a further two to three years if the proposals do not abrogate it.
Given that factor, and the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has written another consultation paper on long criminal trials, and given the fact that that paper is largely based on the Guinness trials and the experiences of Mr. Justice Henry, the trial judge, and his utterances after the trial, this debate is important. In that paper the Lord Chancellor proposes that penalties should be further added to the defence for various time wasting misdemeanours if that can be said to be the case.
At the beginning of next week I shall publish a response to that paper. It is a detailed analysis of the timetable of the Guinness trials. It will show that one of the principal delays in that set of hearings was legal aid and its associated problems. A total of 116 weeks was lost, or involved delay, as a result of legal aid.
There are three sides to the legal aid triangle. There is the base line which is essentially the cost of the
298
services —the courts and the judges—for which I suspect there are no further resources. Indeed, they are probably underfunded so there is no hope there. There is of course the legal aid line which we are debating. However, there is a third line. It is the prosecution line.
I wish to relate a story from my experiences from the Guinness trial. Your Lordships may think that I shall be somewhat unpopular for what I am about to do. During those hearings the prosecution fees were exposed in open court, largely because of discussion on legal aid. Let me explain what they were. For the number one prosecuting counsel, John Chadwick QC, (now Mr. Justice Chadwick) the fee was £550 per hour. For the number two QC, Mrs. Barbara Mills. (now Director of Public Prosecutions) the fee was £450 per hour. For the number three QC, the fee was £350; and for the sole junior it was £250 per hour. On the basis of an eight hour day and a five day week, £550 per hour gives a payment rate of approximately £1 million per year. Collectively those four prosecuting counsel were receiving £64,000 a week. For three halcyon months those persons receiving fees of £64,000 faced nothing—two unrepresented defendants.
I believe that it would have continued like that, and the trial would have perhaps been even worse. However, the strain smashed my heart and I had to have an operation. As a result I applied for legal aid. I was granted legal aid having spent half a million pounds already. I was granted legal aid on condition that I made a contribution of £100,000. However, living was preferable to not having £100,000 and so I accepted that.
I now come to the squaring of the circle. I had two barristers who today have received between them approximately £40,000 in total in interim payments. They still have not been paid for their work of over a year ago. They do not expect to be paid for at least another six months. That imbalance in the structure is a major injustice. Unless questions are asked about the cost of prosecuting, both the cost of the prosecuting authorities themselves and of counsel, the system breaks down. What is happening is a bidding up of fees by the prosecution and the prosecution authorities to a level that is breaking the back of legal aid. That is absorbing money about which there appears to be no control. Let us remember that £64,000 faced nothing for three months.
It is a crazy situation to have on our hands and to do nothing about it. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to make cuts I suggest that he makes cuts in that area, and that area quite deliberately. By doing so he will save many people from losing the possibility of legal aid.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in contributing to the debate, I am sure it comes as no surprise to noble Lords that I am sharply reminded of the well-known phrase about angels fearing and fools treading. However, it is important that a view of the position as it is seen by the public should be expressed. That is a view of which my noble and learned friend the Lord

299
Chancellor must take heed. He has total responsibility for the provision of legal services to every single man, woman and child in this country.
The hour is late. I shall not consider the issue of changing the rules as regards eligibility for legal aid. I wish to stick to what the Law Society and the Bar Council rather unattractively call, in a public relations phrase, the alternative package. Before I do so, I wish to bring forward one general point which I find disturbing. It relates to a general assumption that has been made by every single speaker except the noble Lord, Lord Spens, whose speech interested me greatly. It is the fond assumption made by most lawyers—and I am not being cynical when I suggest this—that access to their services and to the courts equates with access to justice. I am sincerely sorry to say that it is my belief that over the past few decades that assumption has come increasingly to be treated with, at best, wide-eyed astonishment. Those who practise in the law will say, "Oh, that has ever been the cry of the disgruntled litigant", but the problem is that, even when we win at law, we lose because of the appalling burden of costs. The suggestion by the proponents of this Motion that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is attacking the interests of justice by the consideration of cost is nothing other than absolutely monstrous.
I find something else absolutely monstrous too. What about the savings from all the proposals in the alternative package—the freeze on legal aid pay rates; the reduction in the number of occasions on which a solicitor's representative attends counsel in court; the removal of the need for solicitors to attend court on unopposed adjournments in magistrates' courts; the reduction in the need for junior counsel to attend court when leading counsel has been instructed; the increased use of cost orders in matrimonial proceedings?
I can add a couple more. What about legal aid costs recovered against the Legal Aid Fund being restricted to party and party costs? What about the better use of solicitors' staff by granting extended rights of audience to suitably qualified Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives? That would save costs. What about the Legal Aid Board assuming greater responsibility in determining whether legal aid should be granted or not and not, as frequently happens, limiting the grant of legal aid to referral to a barrister for an opinion as to the merits of the applicant's case? That would save costs.
What members of the public ask themselves is, "What on earth was the profession doing decades and decades ago, not putting these proposals to the Government in order to contribute to the reduction of the cost of providing legal services to the public? Why do they suddenly come up with this now?" That is worrying in itself. The brief states that, accordingly, the Law Society has itself developed an internal package of legal aid changes which can save £43 million. Accordingly! That should have been done years ago.
I finish by beseeching my noble and learned friend that he should not consider these proposals as an
300
alternative package: they should be looked at on their own merits and carried through notwithstanding any proposal that my noble and learned friend makes on behalf of the Government and of the recipients of legal services in the country.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is an opportune occasion to discuss this important question, for which we should all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is a sombre occasion and some of the words that I use will, I regret, be harsh. My regret derives from the regard that I have personally for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Despite its blemishes, this is a fortunate country in many ways to have a public servant of the quality of the present Lord Chief Justice. Could any fair, reflective mind find any answer to the speech he made? I have spent most of my adult life, as many of your Lordships have, in the practice of the law. We were all doing work at legal aid rates because we thought it was our duty. I never thought that I should live to hear that both the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls would feel driven to write a letter to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the general terms in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, spoke.
I wish to identify two themes which seem to be common to most of your Lordships. The first theme is that legal aid expenditure cannot continue to rise out of control. No one suggests the opposite; every practitioner has been saying it for years. The second theme is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his high estate, should be the champion of access to justice for the poor and needy. If that second theme is true—and I believe that it is—then the poor and needy, those of no account, will look in vain because their champion has left them.
The bill at the moment for 1991–92, on the department's own figures, is about £1,149 million. I regret to say that I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department efficiently controls the expenditure of those vast sums. I do not believe on any basis of evidence and experience that it administers itself efficiently. I give an illustration. The expenditure on Crown Court legal aid in the year 1991–92 was £188.3 million. Recovered by way of contribution was £1 million. There is no one who practises in the criminal courts who does not readily concede that some defendants in the Crown Court could contribute something sensible far in excess of £1 million. It is not the Bar Council and the Law Society which are charged with the duty of recovering sensible contributions, it is the Lord Chancellor's Department.
In 1987–88, the gross expenditure on legal aid was about £536 million. The amount has not simply leapt up overnight, it has increased significantly and substantially during a period when the Lord Chancellor's Department had the control and commission to exercise a proper responsibility over those sums. What has happened now, I regret to say,

301
is that there is a mean-minded, mean-spirited—which may be worse —attempt to claw back something from those who simply have nothing to offer.
I shall not deal with the grosser examples because my noble friends Lady Mallalieu and Lord Irvine of Lairg outlined them fully. Let me give a modest example. A man who is married with two children aged 12 and eight, who has a gross income before tax of £12,000 a year—which is not wealth untold—will have to provide a contribution to his civil legal aid of £700 a year. No such family would be able to lay its hands on £700. If any of your Lordships thinks that that is an exaggeration, I should be willing to give way to hear the basis of the alleged exaggeration.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to do that. What allowance has he made in respect of living expenses and so on from the gross income to which he has just referred?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the full allowances contemplated by the noble and learned Lord's scheme. If my suggested figure of £12,000 as a gross income for a married man with a wife and two children aged 12 and eight is incorrect, then as always I shall be happy to be corrected. But I think correction will not come. A person finding himself in those circumstances will have no rights. He will hardly understand them. He will be afraid to contemplate them. He may well be a defendant in a civil case or a defendant in a criminal case. What is he to do? I stress that I say nothing in a spirit of personal animosity towards the Lord Chancellor, but that is not the way to make savings.
There are other savings to be made, some of which the Law Society and Bar have put forward. I know of no other body of workers that has offered a pay freeze; that is, a reduction in income of 3 per cent. or so. Committals in magistrates' courts are an expensive waste of time; listing in magistrates courts is an absurd farce; and listing in the crown courts is nonsensically expensive and counter-productive. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, judges in civil cases must be able to dictate the course and speed of litigation, and they and judges in criminal courts must be more interventionist. All of those offer a reasonable spectrum of ways to save money.
I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider whether there has ever been a situation in this country where it has been necessary for a letter of the nature to which I alluded earlier to be sent. If it is unprecedented in its seriousness, as I believe it is, I ask him to reflect upon it and to think again.
8.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for the opportunity to discuss this matter. It is not the first debate that the House has had since the changes I proposed were intimated to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave us an opportunity to discuss them on 17th November, to which reference has already been made.
302
The basic facts that underlie the debate are that in 1979 the cost of legal aid was less than £100 million. In the year ending in March it will be £1,100 million. Over the past four years alone legal aid expenditure has risen by 130 per cent. Those figures take account of VAT on legal services. That rate of growth cannot be allowed to continue. I believe that most of those of your Lordships who spoke understand that point of view. If it were to continue, expenditure would be nearly £2,000 million by the mid 1990s.
A comment was made about lack of consultation. I explained my proposals in some detail to the Law Society at its annual general meeting in Birmingham last October. I said:
"Every extra pound for legal aid means a pound less for the NHS, for schools, for social security or for the infrastructure of the economy".
It is important to underline those words.
In the measures I announced I attempted to safeguard access to justice to the greatest extent I could and to target the available money to where it was most needed. For that reason I have not in any way reduced the scope of the scheme. Legal aid will be available as far as subject matter is concerned in exactly the same cases as now. I fear that at times there may have been some misunderstanding. It may be helpful if I set out the measures that I propose. Detailed regulations will be laid so that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will have an opportunity to examine the detail of the rules in due course.
To deal with the substance of the proposals, the lower limit of disposable income beneath which legal aid is available without contribution will be aligned with the income support rate for a single adult. Currently, the free limit for civil legal aid is an annual disposable income of £3,060. If the change had been made in the current year that limit would have been set at £2,213. From April, taking into account the uprating of social security benefits that will occur, the limit will be £2,294. Equivalent changes will be made to the lower limit for criminal legal aid.
Legal aid dependants' allowances will be aligned with income support dependants' allowances. In 1993–94 the amount allowed for a spouse will be the difference between the income support rate for a couple and that for a single adult. In 1993–94 this will be £25. For a child the allowance will be the appropriate income support age-related allowance. Contributions will be increased from a quarter of disposable income—I emphasise disposable income —above the free limit to one-third and will continue for the life of the case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that these proposals increase the incentives to welfare dependency?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if the state provides a benefit on a means-tested basis there is always the possibility of an argument that where that is a right there may be a tendency to seek to qualify by bringing oneself into that position. To that extent the point applies to any means-tested benefit.

303
Advice and assistance under the Green Form Scheme will be available only to those who qualify without a contribution. In 1993–94 the qualifying limit will be a weekly disposable income of £61.
The next point I make is of importance. Assistance by way of representation, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, will be available without contribution to those with disposable incomes of less than £61 and, on a contributory basis, to those with disposable incomes over £61 and below £147 a week. Therefore, assistance by way of representation is not regulated by the same rules as the Green Form Scheme. Contributions will be higher, again one-third of disposable income, and will continue for the life of the proceedings. But particularly in view of the letter I have received from MIND that has been released to the press I stress that it is not my intention that the availability of assistance by way of representation be limited to those who qualify without contribution. The upper qualifying limit for civil legal aid will, for 1993–94, be pegged at its current level. That is £6,800 and £7,500 for personal injury cases.
It is important to remember that there is no question of legal aid being reduced in the sense that the budget is in any way cut. Even after the measures I have taken, expenditure will rise on the estimates to £1,528 million in 1995–96. That is an increase approaching 40 per cent. over the next three years. Over the same period we expect the number of acts of assistance, that is, grants of legal aid or advice or assistance, to rise from just over three million in the current year to about four million. The number of people assisted is set to rise. That is an increase approaching 30 per cent. In 1979–80 there were fewer than one million acts of assistance. There is nothing in these figures to support the assertion that the Legal Aid Scheme is being destroyed.
The figures I have given put into context the suggestions that the changes will affect as many as 14 million people. To qualify for civil legal aid an applicant must not only qualify financially but also show that the proceedings he or she wishes to take or defend are worthy of support on a proper basis. In 1992–93 we expect some 373,000 civil legal aid certificates to be issued. Clearly, 14 million people will not be affected because only a fraction of that number ever become involved in civil legal proceedings. Criminal legal aid is available to anyone who requires help with the costs of his or her case and where the interests of justice require it.
There is no upper financial limit—I want to emphasise this because I had the impression from some of the things that were said about the proposals that this had not been appreciated—for criminal legal aid. Some people will be asked to pay a contribution who until now would have received free legal aid for criminal proceedings, and contributions will be higher. I believe that in practice it is unlikely that my proposals will have more than a marginal effect on criminal legal aid. In 1992–93 we expect there to be some 600,000 orders made for criminal legal aid. Currently around 95 per cent. do not pay a contribution and 75 per cent. are "passported" to free
304
legal aid because they are recipients of income support or certain other benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, suggested that it was feasible to obtain much more by way of contributions from those who receive legal aid in criminal proceedings. I can assure him that the courts do their best in the matter. It may be that better procedures could be devised, but the people who are clients in criminal legal aid cases are not very easy to persuade to part with substantial money for contributions. Of course, the amounts at stake are rather small and therefore the cost of collection is often quite a high proportion of the amount at stake. There are particular exceptions to that, of which we have had an example this evening.
Green Form advice and assistance will be given to about 1.1 million applicants in 1992–93. After the changes, we expect over 1 million Green Forms in the next year. It is true that some people will no longer be eligible for this sort of help, but the average bill in 1991–92 was £82 and I believe it is not unreasonable to expect those of moderate means to pay this sum.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord continues, what is his description of "moderate means", especially in relation to the Green Form?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my description, for the purposes of the statutory scheme, of those of moderate means is those who will be eligible for particular assistance on the basis of a contribution.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder if the noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy, will forgive me for interrupting again. Does he really define somebody who is earning just over £60 per week as a person of moderate means?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have said I believe that in terms of statutory provisions "moderate means" are properly taken as means which result in contributions so far as legal aid is concerned, as distinct from those who have it free.
The overall effect of my measures, so far as civil legal aid is concerned, will be that about 2 per cent. of households will no longer be eligible as a result of the reductions in dependants' allowances. In addition, the pegging of the upper limit at this year's level will mean that some people who move above the eligibility threshold as incomes increase will not be restored to eligibility. Nevertheless, we estimate that about half of households will continue to be eligible for civil legal aid. More than one-fifth will be eligible without a contribution, and the same proportion will be eligible for Green Form advice and assistance. As I said, there is no upper financial eligibility limit for criminal legal aid. Perhaps I should say in passing, in view of the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that I certainly have no wish whatever to see a public defender system of the kind that he envisaged. What I have sought to do is to ensure that these measures are applied in such a way as to protect, so far as possible, those who need most the legal services in question.
The most needy in our society—those on income support—will continue to be eligible for free legal aid.

305
But it does not follow that the reduction of the free income limit for legal aid will exclude all but recipients of income support from non-contributory legal aid. This is where I take issue with the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. What is important to remember is that both the lower free limit and the upper qualifying limit are disposable income limits. To calculate disposable income for legal aid purposes, allowances are made for tax and national insurance, dependants, housing costs (that is rent or mortgage), community charge or council tax, upkeep and charges, and work-related expenses, that is, fares, subscriptions to trade unions or professional associations and the costs of child minding. In addition, assessing officers have discretion to allow other expenses. The repayment of loans for house improvements and school fees are examples. The list of allowances is comprehensive. It demonstrates that potential applicants for legal aid of moderate means could indeed be eligible, as I have said.
Noble Lords may have seen in the press "before and after" calculations of the effect of the changes for legally aided persons. I would ask your Lordships to consider an example which I have drawn from the eligibility table in the 1992 Legal Aid Handbook. This table indicates that in 1992 a family of a man, wife and two children owning their own home could qualify for legal aid with a gross income of over £22,000 a year. If the changes to the conditions had been made in 1992 and all other things remained equal, this illustrative family would still have qualified with an income of £21,000 per year. However these figures are only illustrative. Eligibility depends on actual income and allowable expenses. Therefore, it is impossible without taking account of actual allowable expenses to arrive at a calculation about how much must be paid in respect of a particular gross income.
Something more than half of those who will be eligible for civil legal aid will be required to pay a contribution. From April contributions will be increased from a quarter to a third of disposable income above the free limit. But, as I have explained, that is after these allowances have been made. Individuals themselves, I believe, must face the financial implications of the action they are taking. If an individual decides that he does not wish to risk his own money I do not see why the taxpayer should be called on to take that risk, assuming that it is a sum which after proper calculations can be afforded.
My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington mentioned that a grant of legal aid gives considerable advantages to the assisted person, notably the protection he is given from opponents' costs. A grant of legal aid is intended to provide a level playing field. The contributory system is one way of ensuring that the playing field is not tilted overwhelmingly in favour of the assisted person. And of course the other side of the litigation—for example, the defendant against a legally aided person who wins his case—does not see that as a particular benefit. My noble and learned friend referred to our exchange during the last debate. I said then, and I repeat, that I believe it to be the law of England that courts have a discretion in connection with the award of costs.
306
That discretion is one which the courts can exercise in a way that Parliament itself has not sought to restrict. Obviously, case law makes it clear that discretion should be exercised fairly or —perhaps it is another word for the same thing—judicially. Certainly I consider that if the court thought a particular disposal on costs was a fair disposal in the circumstances, it would be open to it to do the sort of thing my noble and learned friend has suggested, assuming that that was thought to be fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Following the changes I have announced, contributions will continue for the life of the case. But if an individual is assessed as being able to pay a contribution in one year out of income there is no good reason for him not continuing to pay while the case lasts. I shall be introducing provisions to protect those whose cases drag on through no fault of their own. It goes without saying, but perhaps I should say it nevertheless, that nobody will be asked to pay more than his case costs.
It is important that cases should make progress. One of the very experienced judges, whom I heard speaking some time ago about managing the list in the Queen's Bench Division, explained that often when adjournments were asked for he required the application to be adjourned to the following week so that the lawyer in question could bring his or her client to the hearing of the application for adjournment. In his experience, very often that meant that the adjournment was not in fact applied for at all. That just shows that the clients have an interest in getting on, which is important. I believe it is right that incentives should be given in that way for cases to proceed. But I intend to have provisions in the detailed rules to protect those whose cases drag on through no fault of their own.
There will no doubt be people who choose not to proceed with their legally aided cases, given the contribution they will be asked to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred to a case which could have illustrated that. But that is a choice which faces every private client as well. I see no reason in principle why it should not apply equally to a legally aided person who has been assessed as being able to pay a contribution.
I turn now to the proposals that the Law Society and the Bar Council have brought forward. I welcome very much the initiative of the Law Society and the Bar in bringing forward proposals. I have made it plain to the officials and officers of the Law Society and the Bar that what I require is a system that will enable me to meet the budget requirements which I have set out. I have been invited to look at further measures which will enable those to be met.
I repeat what I have often said; namely, that I am prepared to consider with the Law Society, the Bar and everyone else who wishes to contribute to the discussion, ideas for making better use of the money available for legal aid. I acknowledge that there are changes which can be made in the longer term with good effect. The Courts and Legal Services Act was introduced with that in mind and many of those

307
provisions are now available gradually to assist. In relation to the magistrates' courts, changes are also being made which I believe will assist.
I heard some reference to standard fees as fees which would be paid without any regard to the complexity of the case, or anything of that kind. No such system of standard fees is proposed by me. The system of standard fees which I am proposing will apply in bands to cases up to a certain value of work. If the case requires work to be done beyond that value, the case will be paid above the higher level of standard fee. So it is a misrepresentation to suggest that the system I am proposing has the quality that was described.
I am extremely grateful to the leaders of the professional bodies for the work that they have done in putting the proposals together and for their recognition that the cost of legal aid must be contained. I have repeatedly said that in addresses to the Bar and the Law Society. I regret to say that so far the measures that have been proposed will not, I believe, obtain the result that I require.
The element of the package which has received most publicity is the offer of a "pay freeze" for 1993–94. As I indicated in my response, I had concluded, subject to further consultation with the profession, that in our present circumstances a zero uprating of legal aid remuneration for 1993–94 was appropriate, and therefore this proposal of itself would not produce any additional savings over those I had already contemplated. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the rates that I have to deal with year by year do not of themselves control by any means the whole of the legal aid expenditure. A good deal of that is in the control of the taxation processes of the civil and criminal courts. There is also the point that the amount of work which is done is not subject to that particular regulation-making power except to some extent in relation to the standard fee system, as I explained.
The point I want to make is that a zero increase in rates does not necessarily mean a zero increase in the unit costs of the case. I illustrate that by taking the experience of 1988–89 and 1990–91 when the increases in rates for solicitors and barristers for criminal work in the higher courts were 18.9 per cent. and 18.2 per cent. respectively while the average payments of unit costs increased by 31 per cent. and 37 per cent. respectively. So the relationship is not by any means complete between the rates allowed, even if those are zero, and the unit costs in relation to particular cases.
I would like to mention briefly the remaining proposals. The first removes the need for solicitors to attend unopposed adjournments in the magistrates' courts. I certainly believe that if that attendance is unnecessary, it would not properly qualify at present. It may well be that something further could be done in that direction. The second proposal of this type is to reduce the number of cases in which a solicitor's representative needs to attend counsel in the Crown Court and the county court. The third is increasing the number of cases in which silks appear without a junior.
308
Obviously, I want to consider the proposals further. I accept, as the letter from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said, that they are put forward in the light of seeking to secure the interests of justice in the system which we have to operate. I was grateful for my noble and learned friend's letter. I believe he was not exactly quoting from it in the speech he made today.
The potential of the proposals I am very happy to consider further. They are certainly worth taking further. But as at present advised, I do not believe that they will come near what I need in order to attain the figures which I require.
These proposals are not new to me. The question of solicitors attending counsel and of two counsel being instructed has been considered over a long period by the efficiency commission which was set up by agreement between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bar and the Law Society as a condition of the increase in remuneration which was awarded following some particular types of discussion in 1986. That efficiency commission has looked at the matters very carefully. The present rules—made by the Law Society, as I understand it, in the light of the discussions in the efficiency commission—permit a solicitor's attendance to be dispensed with only on appeals against sentence, committal for sentence and guilty pleas in the Crown court. Those are the present rules, reached after a great deal of consultation and consideration. The two counsel rule and its effects were also very carefully considered as long ago as January 1987. The rules were endorsed by the profession after being suggested by the commission. The results so far have not been very significant. From April 1989 to December 1990—a period that was monitored—only 10 silks had appeared alone in some 3,052 cases.
I shall not deal with the detail of that, but it is worth keeping in mind that the proposals so far made have not been new proposals but proposals very carefully considered. However, I am certainly very willing to consider the proposals further. I am anxious to secure agreement if at all possible, but I believe that the proposals as they stand at present are not likely to meet the needs that I have expressed. The proposals that I have put forward will, I believe, enable me to reach the expenditure target to which I am committed not only for 1993–94, but for the further two years covered by the present public expenditure survey.
I believe that the profession's proposals are worth considering further. Having regard to the time that must elapse between the laying of the regulations and their coming into effect so that people may have proper notice of them, I shall certainly require to lay the regulations soon. In the meantime I am very happy to continue the discussions with the profession and with anyone else who has ideas for arriving at the figures that I require to arrive at within the timescale in question.
The debate has been very useful. I believe that certain observations about the effects of my proposals have perhaps not been sufficiently based on the

309
proposals themselves and I think the detail of them, which I have sought to set out, may help to cope with that.
My attention was drawn to mediation. I have spoken repeatedly in favour of seeking ways to resolve disputes other than through the courts. My primary responsibility is for the ultimate decision in these matters, and the justice system must provide that. I am willing to do anything that I properly can to further other, better ways of resolving disputes. Having regard to the amount of money that is available to me, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that it will be quite difficult to commit money to this when I am seeking as best I can to use the money that I have to secure the maximum amount of legal cover for those who come under the statutory provision.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will respond to the question whether, on the subject of his proposals, he has received any advice from the legal aid advisory committee. If so, will he inform the House what that advice was?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. The legal aid advisory committee has tendered advice to me which is very much on the lines that reductions in relation to eligibility or increases in contributions are highly undesirable. It also commends the idea of mediation and other methods of dispute resolution. So far as that diverts people from necessary service in the courts, it will have a beneficial effect, but it is difficult for me to count on that in present circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he tell the House whether, in his further consideration of the proposals, he will also consult the various agencies in the public sector—those, including his own department, involved in the administration of the courts, the CABs and so on—with regard to the cost-effectiveness of the proposals so that he may be assured or otherwise as to the savings that his proposals are intended to achieve?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I explained, if the proposals are to take effect at the beginning of the financial year 1993–94, it is common sense to lay them in sufficient time for people to discuss the detail of them and be aware of them before they are put into effect. I have made it plain on every occasion, and particularly on the occasion of the debate in this House in November, that I am willing to receive representations or help from anyone. Anyone who wishes to give me representations is therefore welcome to do so. I have received a number of representations, not many of which have shown me a particular way to reach the budget figure that I am required to reach for 1993–94. I live in hope, but time is getting shorter.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to the debate. I thank too all noble Lords for participating in it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tourist Boards
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose as the future role of the statutory tourist boards.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say at the outset how delighted I am to see that tourism can still generate an impressive list of speakers in this House for what has in effect become our annual debate on the subject. I should also declare an interest at the outset in that I am a consultant to and former employee of the British Tourist Authority.
I have put down the Unstarred Question because of my concern, following the Autumn Statement, at the apparent disparity in funding for the statutory tourist boards. While the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards had their budgets increased to modest degrees and for differing periods, that of the English Tourist Board was reduced, with severe cuts in public expenditure survey figures for 1994–95 and for 1995–96. The cuts imposed on the ETB followed an internal Department of National Heritage review of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board.
Ever since I have been associated with the tourist boards they have been subject to review. There have been at least eight major reviews of government support for the tourist industry since 1972 when I first became involved, plus at least two Select Committee reports. I have excluded Northern Ireland from those figures. A ninth review, on the arrangements for tourism in Scotland, is currently under way. Five reviews of the BTA and the ETB and the two Select Committee reports have all occurred since the early 1980s. Some reviews have been conducted in the secrecy of Whitehall which means that neither the tourist boards nor the tourist industry have been able to contribute. One point that I should like to make briefly in that context is to remind your Lordships of what one Mr. Gerard Fiennes, sometime general manager of the Western Region of British Rail, said in a book which, alas, led to the early termination of his career:
"When you review and when you reorganise, you bleed". That point cannot be stressed enough.
All the reviews have concluded that there is a continuing need for government to support the work of the BTA overseas. I should like to pay tribute to my former colleagues in that authority. Its achievements are the envy of our competitors worldwide. Whatever preconceptions we have of ourselves as a tourist destination, it is fairly amazing that we are the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world. In recent years the BTA's professionalism has been reflected in its achievement of the status of top tourist office twice in the USA. It has been voted top tourist office in Australia. Last week it was voted top foreign tourist office in Ireland. It has won numerous other awards for its exhibition stands, its use of technology and its films and literature. It is recognised as a highly professional and competent—indeed, a world-leading —body.
I welcome the Government's support for the BTA but in doing so I should point but that it has a problem at present. Although the devaluation of sterling has made this country more affordable for overseas visitors, particularly from key markets such as North America, it has also had the effect of reducing the BTA's resources for spend overseas, a position which, as noble Lords will know, has worsened in the last few days. The relatively small grant-in-aid increase given to the BTA this year is not enough to compensate for this, nor for inflation in overseas markets or for competitive pressures.
The BTA does its best. Its resources are limited, but last year it used its £11 million-worth of funding for marketing activity to attract some £16.5 million from non-governmental sources—carriers, hotel companies, local authorities and many other organisations —which is again testament to its competence. The commercial sector would not support the authority if it was not extremely good. Taken together, those figures come to more than £27 million. But what is £27 million in worldwide terms nowadays? To quantify the problem, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that this season Spain is spending £4 million in this country alone. Australia is spending some £2.5 million. Jersey is spending £2 million trying to lure us there. Even Cyprus is spending nearly £1 million. Looked at in those terms I fear that the BTA's marketing resources are underfunded.
Important though our overseas visitors are to us, no tourist product can survive on overseas visitors alone. One has to have a strong domestic industry. Although all the reviews to which I have referred reaffirmed to a greater or lesser extent the need for government support for tourism, the more detailed conclusions have not been consistent. The 1983 review of the BTA and the ETB resulted in changes to the boards' structure, with the appointment of a common chairman and the creation of some joint departments serving both boards. Funding for the Section 4 scheme of grant assistance for tourism investment through the ETB was increased. In the next review of the BTA and ETB in 1988–89 the Section 4 scheme was discontinued in England (although it continues to this day in Scotland and Wales) and the government priority for the ETB became to devolve its functions and resources to the regional tourist boards. Approximately half of the ETB's operational expenditure—some £7 million per annum—now goes to them. The latest review concluded that the case for supporting domestic tourism in England was no longer strong. The review did not deal with Scotland and Wales. The ETB was asked to concentrate remaining domestic support primarily through the regional tourist boards and increasingly on areas of economic need with tourism potential. I wonder what parts of the country nowadays do not qualify under that definition. The reduction in support for tourism in England was justified on the grounds of the maturity—whatever that might mean—of the tourism industry in England.
I must admit to being very puzzled as to why the tourism industry in England is apparently more mature than that in Scotland and Wales. What criteria
312
were used to come to this conclusion? We are talking, after all, at a time when greater London has the third highest rate of unemployment in Britain. As an aside, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to clarify the position of the London Forum. We are talking at a time when capital values of hotels have fallen throughout England—by up to 65 per cent. in some resorts such as Torbay. We are talking at a time when private sector investment is only a third of what it was two years ago and when a record number of hotels are in receivership.
At this time of difficulty I find it astounding that the Government are reducing their support for the tourism industry in England. After all, this industry employs some 1.4 million people and has a turnover of £25 billion. It should be remembered also that tourism is a labour-intensive industry and is likely to remain so because there is less scope for substituting people with technology or other forms of capital investment. I am even more bemused by the way the ETB seems to have been singled out for reductions. If domestic activity is valid in Scotland and Wales, why not in England?
The regional tourist boards in England do a good job. To continue doing it they need a strong, central ETB, providing co-ordination for national programmes, such as the accommodation inspection scheme and promotional ventures, and expertise in such areas as policy and research. The Government are mistaken if they think that, even with the proposed grant-in-aid reductions and what increasingly seems to be an emasculated ETB, regional boards will continue to function as now. I fear that they will not be able to do so. We are faced with the danger of the tourism structure in England unravelling, not through conscious intent but as a result of this misguided reduction in funding, combined with the concentration of remaining funds on a few geographical areas which, as I have already said, have been somewhat irrationally selected.
While I understand the theory behind the Government's wish to target funds on areas of economic need, the practical outcome may not be what they intended. We have been down this road before. When I was at the BTA I remember that it was a political directive that we should promote into the intensively competitive Japanese honeymoon market the twin delights of York and Newcastle. The French national tourist office took a rather brighter look and promoted Paris. Your Lordships can readily guess who lost out in that politically inspired competition.
A major shift of funds is bound to leave some regional boards weakened, perhaps totally. One regional tourist board has already gone under. The policy could penalise many of our traditional tourist areas, such as seaside resorts, at a time when they most need support.
The ETB's central role is being questioned. But without the ETB, who is there working to increase the market in most general terms for domestic holidays? Regional tourist boards, the resorts and the district councils will be competing against each other for market share in what could well be a static or declining market. To give an example, last year the ETB initiated a successful resorts campaign to which 35

313
resorts subscribed. This year the number subscribing is 41. The campaign would not have got off the ground without the English Tourist Board. But under the Government's current plans, one wonders whether there is any likelihood of that campaign surviving or others like it being developed.
We have a balance of payments deficit on tourism. Last year British people spent some £4 billion more on holidays overseas than we received from overseas visitors holidaying over here. Every pound spent on a domestic holiday rather than on an overseas one helps to reduce this deficit. England is a major target for other countries' promotion to the United Kingdom. Last year I gather that foreign tourist office promotion to lure us abroad amounted to more than £100 million. When one adds to that the considerable sums which are spent by the major tour operators to try to persuade us to go abroad, one has to conclude that it is surprising that our Government seem less and less keen to invest in what is, after all, a form of import substitution.
I think that all of us here want tourism to continue to develop. In spite of its current difficulties it is one of our most successful industries. We should all strive to build on this success. To me that means continuing to support the tourist boards, including the English Tourist Board, and through it the regional boards, lest the English Tourist Board becomes seriously run down. One can almost envisage budget cuts reaching the stage where one has almost abolished the English Tourist Board without having to go through the necessary primary legislation.
I very much hope that the appointment of a new chairman for the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board will be taken by the Government as an opportunity to affirm their support for the board structure and the valuable work done by the boards.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of other noble Lords. I thank very sincerely my noble friend the Minister for being here, obviously at some personal sacrifice, to reply to the debate. If I had one regret it would be that we really need four Ministers to answer from the Government Front Bench tonight. We need a Minister from the Department of National Heritage; we need a Scottish Office Minister; we need a Welsh Office Minister; and of course we need a Northern Ireland Minister to answer for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board should any noble Lord raise its problems. Perhaps fragmentation of policy, as reflected in that division of ministerial responsibility, and of effort is the real problem facing the statutory tourist boards.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for asking this Question and for giving us the opportunity of looking at the tourist industry, particularly at the statutory tourist boards. I must declare an interest in that I am vice-president of the London Tourist Board. But I do not want your Lordships to take it that what I say is the view of the hoard. Noble Lords know me well enough.
314
As the noble Lord illustrated, there is no doubt that the tourist industry plays a significant part in the economic life of Britain. He told us that it employs many people and that it is worth many millions of pounds. So there is no doubt that the industry is important; a fact that any government must recognise and respond to. The way in which any industry is run and organised is also important for its own well-being and for the maintenance of its contribution to the economy. That is particularly true of the tourist industry because the word "tourism" covers a myriad of disparate activities and businesses ranging from Mrs. Brown's bed and breakfast establishment in Blackpool to vast organisations like British Airways. They are all part of tourism.
Tourism is the sum of those constituent parts and because of its fragmentation it needs a structure; an organisation of its own to add up those parts and complete the sum; in other words, to weld together those fragments into a promotable totality. That is essential and that is where the boards come in. The statutory tourist boards perform that function, but the very diversity of Britain's tourism product—one of its greatest strengths as a crowd puller —means that the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board cannot do that alone. No central organisation could have the rapport and working relationship with the Mrs. Browns of this country at the same time as providing an overview and coherent goals for the industry as a whole. That is where regional boards come in and that is why throughout England they are so important, and none more so than the tourist board for London.
Noble Lords will probably consider me biased, but as those noble Lords who were here almost two years ago when we debated tourism in London will remember, I speak not simply because of my love of London nor because of my association with the London Tourist Board, but because of hard economic reality which makes the future of the London Tourist Board and London's tourist industry vital for the health of London's economy.
We have heard about the fiscal significance of the industry to the country as a whole, but in London that is magnified. As our capital city, London is the gateway to Britain and 80 per cent. of visitors arrive in this country via London. If the industry in London ails, so it will throughout the country. A healthy tourist industry in London is of vital significance to the capital's economy, for tourism represents between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. of London's gross domestic product—a greater percentage than in the country as a whole. To put that in financial terms, tourism brought in an estimated £4,740 million to London last year and about 80 per cent. of that was in foreign currency.
But the significance of tourism to London's welfare cannot simply be measured in pounds and pence. That is just part of the balance sheet. There is more. For example, there is the effect that it has on urban regeneration because although we remain one of the richest countries in the world I believe that no one will

315
deny that there are areas of urban deprivation in this country and that London has its fair share of those areas.
Urban decay is not a pretty sight, nor is it conducive to a city holiday; in fact, it is a disincentive. But the impetus from the industry to develop and improve the London product has done much over the years to stimulate renewal and to push for improvements in the infrastructure. Those measures not only benefit the holiday maker but also the all-important business traveller and the residents. They benefit all of them at the same time as they are helping to make London a more attractive proposition for incoming business and investment. So tourism plays a very important part in many respects in making London more attractive.
Again, there is more. Tourism is one of the country's major employers, but it is even larger proportionately in London where about 200,000 residents—that is, 7 per cent. of London's population —work in the industry. Therefore, in 13 per cent. of London's homes there is someone who works in tourism.
The industry is not simply an employer. It also supports and fosters a large number of small businesses—the flip side of fragmentation—such as the bed and breakfast accommodation to which I referred earlier. There are also small restaurants, boat operators, sightseeing tour companies, and so on. Indeed, more than three-quarters of the membership of the London Tourist Board is made up of such businesses.
I am proud of London. There is, after all, a lot to be proud of. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House share that pride. London is one of the most highly regarded, frequently visited and best loved cities in the world, attracting an estimated 9.8 million overseas visitors last year. In fact, in London we have perhaps the best known brand name in the world.
We must not rest on our collective laurels and assume that it will always be so. We must work together to ensure that it is. We must do this for the tourists, so that they can continue to come to London, enjoy their time here and receive a high quality product. We must do so also for the 200,000 people who work in the industry, and for the numerous men and women running those small businesses which play such a large part in it. We must do so also for London's economic well-being and for all the other individuals and businesses which make up the industry throughout the rest of Britain.
In London the industry is working hard to promote the capital. Under the auspices of the London Tourist Board it has launched a major industry-wide campaign to promote the city in North America and the domestic market. In addition, LTB will be working with the Government through the newly established London Forum. I hope that the Minister will explain to your Lordships how the Government see the London Forum and the London Tourist Board's place in it.
I hope that the Minister will also explain how the
316
Government intend to ensure that the London Tourist Board has co-funding which is adequate for its task. I say that because in the couple of years that I have been involved I have gained the impression that the Government are not prepared to make the effort that is required to ensure that the London Tourist Board is adequately funded. While I was at County Hall the Greater London Council did give an adequate grant to the London Tourist Board. We took the view that London's businessmen working in the tourist industry were paying rates and that they needed some of that money back if we were to foster the industry. The Government have taken over the business rate. They owe it to the businessmen who are involved in tourism in London to see that the London Tourist Board is adequately funded. So far, they have not done so.
In one of my interviews with the Minister he told me how well South-West England, the East Midlands and other places have done in getting funds. But I had to tell him that I was not talking about any of those areas and that the areas I had in mind included Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester. Those are the areas comparable to London as, overseas, are Paris and Rome. The nonsense going on over the funding of the London Tourist Board is unacceptable.
I hope that on this occasion the Minister will be able to say something worthwhile about the contribution the Government are prepared to make in support of this country's tourist industry—an industry which provides employment and a great deal of advertisement for this country. Somehow the Government seem to think that it can be ignored or allowed to find its own feet in some way or other. I hope that on this occasion I shall be pleasantly surprised by the Minister's reply.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I should like to say something about tourism in Scotland, especially as at the moment the Scottish Office is seeking views on how a future local authority structure might best serve the needs of tourism.
I have a family estate on the north coast of Ayrshire which is now a country park and open to the public, so much of my time is taken up with issues of tourism. In particular I try to devise ways of persuading people to pay money to visit my park. But my success or failure depends to a large extent on the unpredictable West Coast climate and also upon the ability of the Scottish Tourist Board, and other bodies, to get visitors to come to Scotland in the first place. Many of us in the tourist business are not convinced that Scotland is being as successful at attracting visitors as the Scottish Tourist Board would have us believe. Only about 10 per cent. of overseas visitors to Britain come to Scotland. For a country with so much to offer, that does not seem especially impressive.
The marketing and development of tourism in Scotland is carried out by many organisations. At present too many government agencies and local authorities are involved directly in it. There are local and regional councils, Scottish Heritage, Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, local enterprise companies as well as the

317
BTA, the area tourist boards and, on a national level, the Scottish Tourist Board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which divide the country between them. That surely cannot be the most effective way of marketing tourism in Scotland. It also seems an inefficient use of manpower and resources.
The Scottish Tourist Board, which, with the BTA for overseas, is the organisation specifically set up for the purpose, does not seem to have enough resources —many other noble Lords have mentioned this in another context—to market Scotland as forcefully and effectively as it should. I am sure that that is partly because it is also expected to provide financial assistance to hundreds of other worthy tourist enterprises in Scotland.
It would surely make sense to replace the existing STB and some of the other agencies with one powerful umbrella body, adequately resourced, to ensure the necessary development and promotion of tourism in all Scotland. That body would also be responsible for a comprehensive national tourist policy. It has been suggested that that function could be performed by Scottish Enterprise or one of its branches, where the serious money seems to be.
However there would still be a need for area tourist boards, although it is generally agreed that there are now too many of them in Scotland. The real trouble with ATBs at present is that they are interested only in the specific area that lies within their own boundaries. Those are almost inevitably the official district or county boundaries. As I am sure all your Lordships are aware, tourists are not impressed by district boundaries. They do not know when they are passing from Cunninghame, of which they have never heard, into Inverclyde, of which they have also never heard. They know only that their area tourist board guide comes to an end, and they seem to have fallen off the map.
When the new area tourist boards are set up, not only must there be fewer of them; they must be free from district or county boundaries. They should all be based on a natural tourist area or perhaps a special focal point such as a city that already has, or can be made to have, a marketable tourist identity; for instance, the Western Highlands, the Cairngorms, the eastern golf courses of East Lothian and Fife, or, more obviously, cities such as Edinburgh or Inverness. Each tourist area should radiate out and extend its sphere of influence as far as is useful to the visitor, bleeding, if necessary, into the centres of other tourist areas. For example, a Glasgow tourist board would need to promote attractions in Edinburgh, which is less than an hour away, and an Edinburgh tourist board should do the same for Glasgow. I have a recent Edinburgh brochure which does not seem to be aware at all of Glasgow's existence.
An example of an eminently marketable tourist area that has so far been barely exploited because of local authority and government agency barriers is the Firth of Clyde, which is just on my doorstep. The Firth of Clyde is a large expanse of sea surrounded on three sides by the Scottish mainland. It contains many fascinating islands including Cumbrae, Bute and Arran. Within it and around it lies some of the most
318
spectacular scenery in Scotland and its edge is only 30 miles from Glasgow. It has probably the best sailing waters in Britain, some say even in Europe, and is ideal for cruising and every kind of water sport. Because of the gulf stream, exotic plants and palm trees can be grown, allowing the creation of famous gardens like the one at Brodick on Arran. With the gulf stream in summer come dolphins, basking sharks and other forms of sea life which are not found in the rest of Scotland. On many of the islands and all around the coastline are traditional seaside resorts like Largs and Rothesay, Dunoon and Millport, all of which, until recently, have been allowed to subside into what one might call a tourist decline.
The reason that this uniquely marketable area has been mostly ignored is that it falls within the boundaries of three different regional councils and about seven district councils. Worse still, it is split in the middle by the line separating the Scottish Tourist Board's sphere of influence from that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Under the present administrative system, the Firth of Clyde does not stand a chance.
This is one example of a part of Scotland which, when the changes come, should be given the opportunity to become one of the new area tourist boards with the power to ignore whatever the new local authority boundaries may be. It should develop its own tourist potential and promote its own area and any other neighbouring areas—for example, Glasgow and Loch Lomond—which may be helpful to the visitor.
I urge that future area tourist boards should be created primarily because they have a natural tourist identity to market. Their objective, apart from promoting their own tourist attractions, should be to make life attractive and easy for the visitor, wherever he wants to go. The boards should not be set up for the administrative convenience of the local authorities involved. It is the visitor whom we must please first and not the hotel owner or the local authority officer.
I am proposing quite a radical change in the management of tourism in Scotland but I know that my views are far from unique. Some of these ideas are already being discussed. I can only ask that, when the Government or the Scottish Office restructure local government, they will also consider restructuring tourism along those lines.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Mountevans for introducing this Unstarred Question. I believe that the debate is both timely and important.
I take part in the debate for two reasons. The first is that I live in Oxford, which is a city that I suspect attracts millions of visitors every year. As a result of that, tourism makes a major contribution to its prosperity and affects the whole of the local economy. My second reason for taking part in the debate is that I know people in the tourist industry who are extremely anxious about the fact that the Government

319
are not as committed to a thriving tourist industry as they believe they should be. When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will answer that point.
I begin by saying why I think the tourist industry is so important for our country as a whole. The most important issue facing the country today is unemployment. I believe, as do many people, that it is difficult to see an end to the recession until the unemployment figures start to come down. Tourism is a growth industry, even in these times. It now employs 1.5 million people, some 25 per cent. more than in 1981. Those people are employed in real jobs catering for the real needs, interests and entertainment of people generally.
Even in 1991, a year hit by the effects of the Gulf War, there were some 16.8 million overseas visitors to this country. In 1990, 58.4 million people took holidays at home that lasted one or more nights. I believe that those figures are increasing. That is a success story. It is true, of course, that many of the jobs created are part-time jobs but they are valuable to certain groups of people, for example students who want to work during the summer vacation when most of the tourists come.
The second reason why I think the tourist industry is so important is that it is now the fourth highest earner of invisible exports. Overseas visitors spent some £7.2 billion in the United Kingdom last year and the numbers of visitors are set to increase, inevitably with the opening of the Channel Tunnel and presently with the devalued pound making the United Kingdom a much more attractive place to visit. Indeed I have read that if theatre and restaurant earnings were added to the figures, tourism would be the highest invisible exports earner. Those figures have to be set against all the advertising and offers—these were clearly spelt out by my noble friend Lord Mountevans —that come from other countries that wish to persuade British people to go abroad for their holidays. I am not in any way against that, but we need to recognise what our own tourist industry does for the balance of payments.
Thirdly, the tourist industry accounted for over 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom's GDP in 1989. It would be helpful to know, if the Minister can tell us, what it accounts for now. The tourist industry is therefore a success and it seems to me that in public life, as elsewhere, one should build on success and make sure that it continues and increases.
I turn now to what my noble friend Lord Mountevans has identified, rightly, as one of the present problems; namely, the funding of the tourist industry, quite particularly the funding of the English Tourist Board. The fact is that the Government have announced a substantial reduction in the funding of the English Tourist Board from £15.3 million in 1992–93 to £9 million in 1995–96. If, as I understand it, the funding of the regional boards is maintained at the present level—that is, around £6 million to £7 million a year—that leaves some £2 million to £3 million for the English Tourist Board. That is less than one-tenth of the funding for the Welsh and the Scottish Tourist Boards. At the same time the projected budget
320
increase in the Department of National Heritage is some 8 per cent. I am afraid I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government are not as fully committed to supporting the tourist industry as they might be.
I sometimes think this arises because as a country we are ambivalent about the tourist industry. Of course we like the jobs it creates and the wealth it brings, but, oh dear, what complaints there are. There are complaints about all the people coming in, the crowds, the extra buses travelling round London and all the extra people visiting places that we like to have to ourselves. Sometimes tourism is regarded as a kind of froth industry because it is not part of our industrial base. However, the fact is that tourists will continue to visit this country. I believe that tourism is now the largest industry in the world. It must surely be in our own interest, let alone the interest of visitors, either from this country or from other countries to make tourists welcome.
Where do the Government's priorities lie? I hope very much that they will look seriously at the level of expenditure within the total budget of the Department of National Heritage. If it is too late to do anything this year—that may well be the case—I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Astor will impress upon his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the need to look seriously at the funding for next year. I ask that because I now wish to consider in detail the funding for the English Tourist Board.
No explanation has been given as to what the Government mean by the statement that the tourism industry in England has "matured". I am not sure that I fully understand the use of the verb in that context. Nor do I believe that the Scots or Welsh would like to be described as immature, as the opposite seems to be implied. However, I am not here to debate such points because this is far too serious a subject.
It must not be forgotten that the tourism industry is not like an enormous multinational company. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, have pointed out, thousands of small companies and the self-employed make up the tourist industry. The regional boards can help to co-ordinate the marketing and information services and stimulate investment in the industry through a mixture of private sector, local authority and central funding, but many tasks remain to be done by the English Tourist Board.
It would be helpful if my noble friend could say how he believes that the following needs which are currently catered for by the English Tourist Board will be met—for above all it is important that the industry should be always looking to the future. Some of the key roles of the English Tourist Board are as follows. First, leadership: it is important that the English Tourist Board continues to represent tourism on behalf of the region and the industry at a national level. That includes representations on policy matters of all kinds, including government and European Community legislation affecting the industry. Secondly, strategic policy: the English Tourist Board provides the strategic policy framework which ensures that the regions are operating to common goals.

321
Thirdly, research: the English Tourist Board research role is fundamental to the efficient planning and marketing of the industry at a national and regional or sub-regional level. It also provides a pool of expertise on which the regions can draw. Fourthly, coordination: there is a danger of the 11 regional boards duplicating their efforts. Fifthly, but by no means least, information collection: the board provides the framework and systems necessary for controlling and operating information collecting and dissemination on a national basis. That includes the setting of standards for accommodation grading schemes, tourist information centres etc. Those are very important issues. It would be helpful if this evening we could be given an answer to them.
To conclude, I hope very much that my noble friend will stress to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the importance of the tourist industry. I believe that its importance to the country as a whole cannot be overestimated, particularly in the difficult economic times in which we find ourselves. It has been a success story. I believe that we should build on that success. I hope that he will be able to indicate that the Government have a whole-hearted commitment to making it work in all parts of the United Kingdom.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for putting down this Question this evening. I come from what might be regarded as the other end of the industry—the same sector as the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, although I am based in Norfolk and he is near the gulf stream—a much more pleasant place to be at the moment. Therefore, I should declare an interest.
I have run what is called an "attraction" since 1969 and two since 1989. I have been a member of the East Anglian Tourist Board since its inception. Prior to reorganisation I represented Norfolk County Council on the board and since 1980 I have been an associate member. I was chairman from 1982 to 1988 and I am still a vice-president. I think that I have declared all the interests I have in the board.
While I was chairman I survived two reviews, two departments of state, three—or was it four?—Ministers and two different chairmen. I find myself here tonight seeking information from another Minister from another department, while another review is taking place and another chairman is about to leave. I am confused. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to enlighten me before the evening is complete. I have come to the conclusion that tourism in England is the pass-the-parcel portfolio, but I am not clear whether anyone wants to be holding the parcel when the music stops.
I too read the Chancellor's Autumn Statement and, for old time's sake, I checked to see what was happening to the English Tourist Board. The figures have been cited several times already. Furthermore, I understand that agreement has been reached between the chairman of the 11 regional boards and the chairman of the board of ETB that, in line with the wishes of the Secretary of State, support for the
322
regional boards will remain constant until 1995–96. While the regions welcome that because it produces some stability for them, they are extremely worried about the future of ETB with the resulting lack of funding—on paper anyway.
I am sure that I speak for all the regions when I say that they need the English Tourist Board. They need the board to co-ordinate activity, to advise the Government, regions and industry on policy issues, and to provide leadership. That is important.
I ask a simple question. On the figures that we have, do the Government intend that the English Tourist Board shall cease to exist? The Secretary of State has stated that support to the regions should,
"be targeted much more closely than at present on areas where the need is greatest and tourism could be an instrument of economic regeneration".
That means more money going to the regions, but which ones? The department is pressing the English Tourist Board to devise a new system to implement the policy. Assumptions are being made that such a scheme would give priority to existing assisted areas. Regions believe that a new scheme would be impracticable within the constraints of limited funds available. Furthermore, they believe that any appropriate activity should be based on tourism potential, rather than on assessment of industrial decline.
In my region, unemployment at Great Yarmouth —and, my goodness, does not its Member of Parliament refer to it on many occasions?—is 15 per cent. That is similar to Barnsley or Doncaster. Both the latter have long had assisted area status. Clacton has an unemployment rate of 20 per cent. That is higher than Hartlepool at 18.6 per cent. or Liverpool at 16.8 per cent. In East Anglia tourism can help economic regeneration in Yarmouth and Clacton. It can also help to produce employment in rural areas.
The prime objective of the regional boards, and the East Anglian board in particular, is,
"to encourage the improvement of the general longterm economic performance of the tourist industry in the region".
The small sums available should be used to support what we already do well, but perhaps could do better: to develop and promote tourism in the resorts and the countryside and to increase the overseas visitor spend in our heritage towns. That is much more likely to create employment than switching money to parts of the country whose intrinsic appeal to the domestic or overseas visitor is doubtful. Any new scheme would inevitably absorb a disproportionate amount in overheads.
I must ask the Minister whether he would agree that, as no additional funds are available to the English Tourist Board or regions, economic regeneration through tourism is more likely to be achieved by building on the good work currently undertaken by the regional boards rather than by diverting money elsewhere, which could prejudice existing operations.
Next, after the most excellent debate in the House on 21st January, may I urge the Minister to put on his green hat? With his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture urging farmers to diversify, and with rural deprivation, I suggest, almost as bad as urban deprivation, does he understand that tourism in

323
the countryside is important but requires special extra skills of management, research and consultation? Central guidance in this is essential, otherwise the countryside will be littered with four by four race tracks, clay pigeon shooting, golf courses and war games. All our cliffs and other beauty spots could be bestrewn with caravans and tents, while the roads to them are improved and widened to the detriment of wildlife, thus ruining the countryside and the very peace and quiet that the visitor had hoped to find.
In conclusion, may I suggest to the Minister two little thoughts? The first is not an easy concept but I always feel that the yardstick by which tourism should be judged is not quality, nor value for money nor even friendliness. All those matter, but what is important is what people visit and whether it is up to expectation. Things that exceed expectation are fabulous. Those that do not fail.
Perhaps my second thought is a little simpler. Tourism is about enjoyment, so let us enjoy this debate. Let all the visitors to our countries enjoy themselves. But could the Minister and the Secretary of State at least look as though they are enjoying themselves when discussing tourism? Thank you for smiling, Minister!
9.42 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, first I must declare my interest as the President of the Southern Tourist Board, a post I have held since its inception. Due to the lateness of the hour, I intend to restrict my remarks to the regional tourist boards. At least the latest tourism review recognises that there has been great progress over the past 20 years in tourist infrastructure, facilities and marketing. But I think there can be no doubt that that was due in no small part to the splendid work of the English Tourist Board, as well as the regional tourist boards. They are at the sharp end of tourism, keeping the wheels of the British tourist industry well oiled.
It now appears that the Government believe that they can scale down the level of central support for the English Tourist Board and that regional tourist boards should be increasingly independent and self-financing. That may well be so, but I think I can speak on behalf of all regional tourist boards when I say that we are all in favour of regionalisation and devolved powers. Indeed, I go further and say that we are also in favour of privatisation of any services, if they are cost-effective and efficiently run.
However, the fundamental truth is that the regional boards are naturally competitive and will never be able to function properly together in carrying out an effective national tourist policy without a strong catalyst at the centre; that is, an English Tourist Board which can so much more efficiently carry out research, information collection, hotel classification and also very importantly, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Young, the scrutiny of European Community legislation. Those are all tasks on which it would be pointless duplication of resources for the regional tourist boards to carry out independently.
324
I am sure that I shall not be offending my fellow regional tourist boards when I say that from time to time the English Tourist Board plays an important role in settling disputes between regional boards, even knocking heads together when required.
The regional tourist boards view with great apprehension the planned reduction over the next few years of the grant to the English Tourist Board resulting in the reported potential redundancies of 70 key staff. I fear that once the structure of the tourist boards and their relationship with the centre has been altered it will never be possible fully to repair the damage. Not only do we need strong and active regional boards, we also need a well-funded, efficient organisation at the centre. I am not alone in hearing rumours that the real intention of the Government is to starve the English Tourist Board into extinction. Perhaps my noble friend will dispel those rumours. After all, England gets 80 per cent. of all tourists in this country, and if Scotland and Wales need a board so does England.
Another matter that affects the regional tourist boards, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, is what I believe to be the misguided idea of using tourism as an instrument of regional economic development and planning. I submit that everywhere in Britain that has tourist potential has or is being developed or perhaps does not want to be developed. Looking at the empty hotel rooms and some declining seaside resorts one can hardly claim that new tourist areas are either necessary or viable. One cannot force people to go where they do not want to go. That has been tried unsuccessfully before, and will fail again. Unattractive areas cannot be made attractive by government decree. In any case, I believe that the regional tourist boards have quite enough to be getting on with as it is without trying to turn the decaying industrial back streets of Britain into family theme parks. The lack of on-going development and the disappointment that followed the garden festivals should be lesson enough.
I have been involved in tourism for 40 years and during that time I have seen a small amateur weekend industry turn into a multi-billion-pound business making a major contribution to Britain's foreign currency earnings. It now employs 1.5 million people, most of whom work in small businesses which are the backbone of the industry. On a personal note, this spring I shall be welcoming the 20 millionth visitor to Beaulieu since 1952.
The great success of tourism owes much to the work of the statutory boards, particularly the BTA whose work in various countries round the world is second to none. Unfortunately, in recent years there has been government review after government review. That has unsettled everybody and prevented the boards from doing the job they were set up to do—to sell Britain at home and abroad. Let the regional boards get on with the jobs they are doing so well but at all times maintain an authoritative and effective central tourist board to give leadership to the industry. Let us have no more penny-pinching cuts that result in the boards being nothing better than advertising agencies producing glossy leaflets. Those of us who

325
have helped to bring British tourism up to the high standard it enjoys today feel they deserve a sincere expression of appreciation for past efforts and, hopefully, a vote of confidence in their ability to achieve greater things in the future.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for giving us this opportunity to look at the tourist industry. It was a subject on which I was privileged to make my maiden speech not very long ago when the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked an Unstarred Question on the tourist industry, focusing mainly on London.
Many of the topics I wanted to cover have already been mentioned. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in his comparison of Paris, Newcastle and York. He said that he knew which he would opt for. I would also opt to go to Newcastle. It has many delights though none as obvious as Paris.
Answering the debate introduced on 17th July 1991, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment, stated at col. 262:
"The Government have certainly played their part in supporting the industry. In 1990–91 we spent some £530 million on tourism and leisure-related activities in Great Britain, and that excludes the cash injected by local government. A major element was, of course, the money we made available to the national tourist boards, and our commitment to them is clear and continuing".
The proposed cuts in the budget of the English Tourist Board do not indicate that the Government are showing anything like the clear and continuing commitment to the English tourist industry that the Minister said was the Government's policy a mere year and a half ago. The proposed £5 million cut in the grant to the tourist board will benefit not the tourist industry but the Treasury. If the Government believe that the English Tourist Board has almost no role to play in the future of tourism in this country, as the small grant it is to be allocated would suggest, it would be a gesture of support for the industry as a whole if the money that was to be removed from that tourist board's budget could be transferred to the grants of the regional boards.
Tourism, it has been pointed out, is worth £24 billion to the economy of the United Kingdom. If that figure is taken to be the level of spending for 1993–94, the projected grant for that year of £85.6 million represents less than 0.4 per cent. of the money earned by the country through tourism. When even the most frugal of companies is prepared to spend at a minimum 5 per cent. of earnings on marketing, it is perhaps surprising that the Government's commitment to promoting tourism—one of the country's largest industries and certainly one of the most profitable—is slightly derisory.
The Minister will probably answer that it is up to the private sector to fund marketing. But, as will be shown, perhaps the Government should be relied upon more heavily. Tourism is a business that by its nature is extremely competitive. The English Tourist Board was set up under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 to give greater cohesion to the industry and to help rationalise and promote its development. That
326
aim seems to have been lost by the present Government, who appear to have opted for making cuts that will benefit the Treasury in the short term while failing to realise the potential and long-term monetary gain that could come to the country.
Indeed, considering that 1.4 million people are employed in tourism at present and that the figure may rise, it is possible that false economy in marketing England as a tourist destination may inflate the social security budget in the not-too-distant future. Tourism is a vulnerable industry. The Gulf War meant that fewer long-haul visitors came to this country, and tourism has also been hit by the worldwide recession. If this country is not marketed abroad more aggressively, it is obvious that visitors who would have come here will instead go to those countries which spend more on advertising.
The British Tourist Authority, which has the task of marketing Britain overseas, has been given a very small increase in its budget—a mere £1 million. This, considering that devaluation has cut its spending power by 20 per cent., seems not appropriate. Given that devaluation has taken its toll, I wonder whether the Minister will increase the budget.
The role of the ETB is to attract tourists and to make English people see Britain as a tourist destination. All too often, British people do not even consider Britain as a place to go on holiday. Perhaps they go for a short break, or perhaps for a family outing; but it is very rare that one hears of people from the South going north for a holiday, or even people from the North coming south for a holiday. I feel that with the opening of the Channel Tunnel, more people in the South will go to France for their holidays. As has been pointed out, that will be quite a drain on the country's economy.
I would like to bring forward one point. One of the ETB's main roles is the national classification scheme. If that is taken away, it will be a major blow to the tourist industry in many regional areas.
An area with which that I am associated—Alnwick, in Northumberland—relies heavily on the classification that the ETB gives; namely, the crown scheme for serviced accommodation and the key system for self-catering. Those schemes have improved the quality of accommodation in the area. It is only with the granting of a title such as "recommended" or "highly recommended" or "de luxe" that a self-catering establishment can charge higher rates. Quality is one of the major reasons why people come back to the area. It is only through quality that people will come back.
I doubt very much whether the Minister will say that any more money is available for the English Tourist Board. I believe it is the intention of the Government that private enterprise should pay for itself. However, in an industry so fragmented, it seems ridiculous to expect people such as self-caterers in Alnwick to be able to market themselves effectively.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Mountevans for proposing the debate. I strongly

327
support those who have drawn attention to the economic importance of tourism. What concerns me and has brought me to speak in the debate is the number of people in the tourist industry, both from the tourist boards themselves and those who are running tourist businesses, who now show conviction that the Government are no longer giving the importance to tourism that they used to.
Let us consider the entrepreneurial aspect of tourism. My noble friend Lord Montagu pointed out that tourism is a business that needs to attract people; it is a business that needs to be aware of the customer and a business that ebbs and flows as the demands of the customer change. So it is a business made up—as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, pointed out—of a whole diversity of people with ideas, with enthusiasm and with the ability to create tremendous economic strength for the nation. If they begin to think, as they quite clearly do now, that the Government do not believe that their industry is as important as it was, their enthusiasm will tend to wane. That is clearly a view held by many. I believe that noble Lords have emphasised that point.
Another point of concern is that, as a person very close to the rural economy, I am anxious to see as many economic opportunities as possible allowed in the rural community to take the place of the traditional agriculture which has previously been the base of its economy. I believe that tourism can play a much more important part than possibly it is being encouraged to do at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, painted a rather bleak picture of the countryside being covered by all kinds of tourist activities, but that is not what happens in reality. We are talking about very marginal impacts on what we see. It is nonsense to put forward a scary picture to the effect that, when you encourage economic development in the rural community, you will be inundated with roads and businesses sprouting up. That is not what promoting tourism is about. It is about encouraging the involvement in those extra businesses which allow economic growth of those who are on the edges of towns, who are already involved in some kind of tourist activity and who are already close to an area to which people can be attracted. There is a great deal that Government can do to give encouragement and support in that area. I am aware of a major, British-owned leisure company which now finds that investment is going to other parts of Europe, including Germany and France. It wishes to develop, but it finds that delays regarding planning applications, controls and regulations make investors go elsewhere. That is not in our interests.
I agree with all noble Lords who say that it is the Government's role to ensure that tourist boards have the financial support that they need, but that it is not just a question of finance. We must have a clear policy from the Government and the Department of National Heritage in order to see the economic benefits from tourism. We must help it to grow and must encourage entrepreneurs so that they do not feel that, every time they want to do something, for every one person who helps them there are three hindering
328
them. That is the picture generated within our tourism industry and the Government can play a great leadership role in changing people's views.
Like my noble friend Lady Young, I urge my noble friend the Minister to ask the Secretary of State to look again closely at the role that can be played by the department in encouraging tourism. Tourism is an industry and the department's other responsibilities are less industrially based. I share the strong feeling of many people that there is a tendency within the department to move resources to those areas which are not industry based and which provide what one might call the luxuries in life, and away from the more important industrial and economic aspects of tourism. If we are to achieve all the things that people ask for, the department and the Government have a prime responsibility to put our taxpayers' money where it will do the most good in the short term. The encouragement of tourism and the creation of more wealth in both our rural and urban areas is of prime importance.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountevans for introducing this subject and to my noble kinsman for speaking so wisely from the Benches opposite. I must declare an interest in that I am chairman of a privately run caravan park, an industry that is often considered to be the bane of the countryside and of the planners. We have been in business for rather less time than my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and have not grown at such an astounding rate. I congratulate him on that. However, we have pleased our bankers for the last 22 years and have made a profit every year.
Having been chairman of this company for some time, one of the most difficult tasks that I have every year, apart from dealing with government departments, is to make the speech at the annual Christmas lunch for the staff, because the message is basically the same every year. As no one has mentioned this point, I shall risk boring your Lordships with it. When you are in the holiday business, you are selling packages of happiness. It is a very large investment. People buy a weekend, a week or even a fortnight if they are rather more fortunate, of happiness and enjoyment for themselves and their families.
The important thing for those engaged in the industry is to recognise that the people who come to us for their holidays expect to be satisfied, pleased, looked after, welcomed and made to feel secure. If they do not feel that, there is a considerable chance that they will not come again. If one does that, even if it rains every day, one is rather better placed. That is very important. Of course one needs money to provide the facilities. Ours are relatively elementary. No, they are good but not luxurious. More than anything, it requires the devotion of one's staff—and leadership by one's senior employees to enthuse the staff on wet days, dry days, cold days and windy days—to look after our basic raw material, the customers who come.
As I am speaking last before the gap, virtually every line that I was going to play has been stolen, so I shall divert the attention of the House for a moment by

329
congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on her fortitude in sitting through three debates and, what is more, speaking in all of them.
With regard to Scotland, where I live, it seems to me that the present proposal to review the work of the Scottish Tourist Board and the official organisation of tourism in Scotland is singularly ill-timed. A review is going on in Scotland of local authority boundaries and whether authorities should all be unitary, or conceivably some of them not. The former is much more likely. Until the boundaries of the local authorities are defined and settled there is no possibility of setting up a realistic pattern of regional tourist boards.
Inevitably some heed has to be taken by those defining regional tourist board boundaries of local authority areas, but these should not be compulsory boundaries. In every regional tourist board area one must have a major selling attraction and a large enough area to be recognisable. I do not know of a particular example in Scotland, but if one saw a brochure labelled "South Hams", would one actually want to go there? I believe that it is somewhere near Salcombe. Indeed when I saw for the first time a bus labelled "Alder Valley", it took me quite a long time —I still do not know whether I am right—to realise that it came from Aldershot. It is perhaps true to say that Alder Valley sounds rather better than being "shot". That is the point. The regional tourist boards must be of a large enough area and must have something within them worth selling.
Next door to the area where I live is Kirkcaldy. It is very difficult to sell much in Kirkcaldy. Indeed, the description—I may well be pilloried when I get home —"First prize, a week in Kirkcaldy; second prize, a fortnight" is probably still valid, as it was at one time, until it was renovated, for Wigan, although I have never been there. That is by the way.
The really vital duties of regional tourist boards cannot be carried out without central direction. The Scottish Tourist Board is financed directly under the general block grant of the Scottish Office; and long may that continue. I am sure it will. This gives a much more local view of what is necessary and needed. Unfortunately, for historic reasons the government bodies controlling and directing tourism in Scotland are immensely fragmented; some rightly, some wrongly.
At the top of the tree, holding all the money, except that which those like myself in the industry are prepared to chip in, is the Scottish Office. Then we have the Scottish Tourist Board. But paralleling that, beyond the Great Glen, we have Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It used to be known as the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Under that are the local boards. At the side somewhere—I am not quite sure where—we have Scottish Enterprise, which is reputed to have large amounts of money and a great deal of clout. Then standing still further to the side we have the British Tourist Authority.
That is a very undesirable fragmentation. That has been recognised in the Scottish Tourist Board's review in which it has put forward a claim to take over all of their functions with the exception of the Scottish
330
Office. Unfortunately, in that it is wrong. The Highlands and Islands Board is working in an area of great economic poverty and deprivation, where tourism and its development is one of the very few avenues by which the country and its inhabitants may be bettered. As I have said before in this House, the countryside, like it or not, runs on money.
The grant and development projects in the Highlands and Islands area, which is really the other side of Loch Ness, are quite different and must be treated differently. I do not sympathise with the claim of the Scottish Tourist Board to take over that area; otherwise I have considerable sympathy with what it proposes. It is unfortunate that I have not yet received its detailed plan. I have only seen a leak of it in a Scottish paper and I hope that it is true.
For a tourist board there are three vital duties which have been touched on. I shall go through them as quickly as I may. First, there is the control of standards. That has got to be done at national level, and I mean at a national level. There must also be co-operation between the three national tourist boards for Wales, Scotland and England; otherwise the regional tourist boards will fragment the arrangements.
I have received a letter from the National Caravan Council which says that it cannot now readily get an agreement from 11 regional tourist boards, whereas formally it had to negotiate with only one. I have a letter from the British Home and Holiday Parks Association also saying that it is its policy to negotiate only at national level. Their resources of time, manpower and patience even do not allow any other conclusion.
The second factor which is vital to the Scottish Tourist Board is that it administers grants. I have touched on that already in relation to both Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Tourist Board. These have not been available in England for some time, but in Scotland they have been. They are welcomed and valuable. I have to admit to having had some myself, although in the past the procedure has been extremely long-winded and the accountants' fees for producing cash flow forecasts, profit analyses and all the rest of the stuff they charge for cost a great deal more than one would like, and it was probably meaningless at the end of the day.
The third vital function of a national tourist board, as has been remarked, is to lead the area tourist boards in the direction in which it sees tourism, as a considered policy, should go. One of the snags of the present area tourist boards is that they tend to be local authority dominated. To put the matter briefly, that leads often to a very nasty attack of all the things which are said to be wrong with British Rail. They feel themselves impenetrable to criticism and all that kind of thing. I do not feel that at all about British Rail, but merely remark on it because that has been said.
As far as Scotland is concerned the important thing is that we should have distinct marketing. We are a separate nation, but we are also part of the United Kingdom. For that reason, I hope that the Scottish Tourist Board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will co-operate more closely in what they are doing in

331
advertising and publicity than they have done in the past. It is to be hoped that the changes at the top of the British Tourist Authority will also make that liaison easier.
I realise, as my noble friend Lord Mountevans said, that there is great fragmentation in control. Apart from my noble friend Lord Astor on the Front Bench there should be another row of Ministers to answer all the questions which us tiresome Scots were about to raise. But that is not the way that this House works, in this case unfortunately. I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this subject and I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
10.14 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I put my name down to speak to this Unstarred Question because I wanted to ask one simple question of the Minister, but, given the position in which I find myself on the list and in order to do justice to the importance of the topic raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, perhaps I may say just a word or two more than one short question.
This is the third debate today in which the Government have been warned against making false economies. That was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Redesdale and by many others of your Lordships. Tourism requires investment and will pay a very great return on it. I was struck by the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the industry should be allowed to build on its own success.
Although the importance of the industry has been well demonstrated this evening by your Lordships, British tourism may not remain a successful industry. It needs to hold its own in the international market. It needs to develop strategies for that and to look to its different markets. I understand that the main overseas market for London is largely American, with central London hotels depending greatly on the patronage of the Americans, to the extent of 40 per cent. in the case of the Ritz. We are aware, of course, of how sensitive Americans are to what happens in all sorts of ways in this country. The fortunes of the market depend on exchange rates. The number of visitors can ebb and flow. The world is a changing place.
In looking at the importance of London and its competitiveness on the world stage, I have been aware during the past few years of two attributes—two policy areas—which are important for tourism as well as for everything else. One of those is the quality of life. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked the Minister to put on a "green hat". That would be just the thing to complete his outfit this evening. I am sure that the Minister is aware that noise and pollution are not only threats to the quality of life of those of us who live and work in London but may also be deterrents to visitors to London.
The quality of our transport is also important. It can be a great deterrent to visitors who may not be
332
confident that they will get the service they expect. I spoke a couple of months ago at a conference in Paris when the Ile de France region was attempting to assess how Paris could keep its place on the world stage. Transport was very much in people's minds although the campaign that the region had been running was called "Qui sourit?"—and taxi drivers were being urged to smile. This country's policy development is a little more advanced, but our transport is a major issue. The promoters of our major tourist attractions are in a very good position to promote the use of public transport and I believe that they have a responsibility to do that. We are all aware of the cultural change that is required in relation to transport. I hope that the Government will encourage those major attractions to lead the way.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, spoke eloquently about the place of tourism in urban regeneration. I endorse his remarks.
London is important, so the arrangements for London are important. Without making any particular comment on the current proposals, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who described reorganisation as leading to "bleeding". Sometimes reorganisation and review can staunch the flow of blood and may be a good thing.
A review is taking place upon which I should be glad to have the Minister's comments this evening. It relates to the London Forum, which was a commitment in the Conservative election manifesto. I was not entirely clear then what was intended, and I am not a great deal clearer now. I bear the private sector no ill will—on the contrary—but I question the announcement about the relationship of the London Forum to the London Tourist Board. The announcement was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the launch of the London First organisation. It was not expected by the London Tourist Board, which had not known that there was to be an announcement about its future role and the relationship of the two bodies.
The private sector's involvement and expertise are important. I welcome that. However I wonder whether we can run London using highly skilled people who can give only a limited amount of time and meet only infrequently. They have a great deal to contribute, and they will contribute it, but they are not given the forum—I hope that your Lordships will forgive the pun—to contribute what they can and to do what is required.
My second point is a related one. The Government stand off too much from the boroughs, especially in London, in relation to tourism. We do not yet know the membership of the London Forum. I shall be glad if the Minister will comment upon what I have heard: that there is to be no local authority involvement. If that is so, it may be because of the continued fear—I should say that it is a misplaced fear—that it would become a campaigning body. I think that the ghost of the GLC has now been laid to rest!
Local authorities have a part to play. My noble friend Lord Glasgow questioned the boundaries of the various tourist authorities and suggested that they

333
were set for the convenience of local authorities. I am sorry if that is the impression that he has; most local authorities prefer to see themselves as serving rather
334
than existing to be served. Local authorities can and should be involved. They are not everything, but neither are they nothing.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to take part in the debate. I begin of course, as most other speakers have, by warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for giving us the timely opportunity to discuss this matter. He has brought to bear his perspective and experience of the subject. He has given us all—I hope that that includes the Minister and his colleagues—the chance to reflect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has shown her stamina as well as her wide experience not merely by sitting through three debates—an experience I share —but by speaking eloquently three times. She told us that the other two debates, like this one, were used by the participants to warn the Government of the results of not understanding fully the consequences of what they believe to be their imperatives in reducing expenditure or changing policy.
I have listened carefully. The word "politics" has not entered into the debate, but this debate, like the other two, is all about politics. The decisions were taken by politicians. There are political imperatives which drive the Government to make their policy. The Minister should not be afraid to say that political decisions have been taken: from the announcements in the Autumn Statement and in many other ways. Politics is all about people.
Noble Lords have declared interests, which I respect. I was not sure how to declare my prime interest until I noticed that I am wearing my Co-op tie. My connection is with the Co-operative movement, which is strongly involved in the tourist industry. As other noble Lords have said, at the end of a long debate there is not much more to be said.
I begin by quoting the words of someone who was certainly one of the blue-eyed boys of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She appointed him some three years ago and his term of office is coming to an end. Mr. William Davis said —and this is from the Guardian so it must be true:
"The Government's attitude had made it impossible for me to continue. I have had three years of battling away, but it seems that the Government is making up tourism policy as it goes along".
I know how much this Minister respects the words of chairmen of quangos who are appointed by himself and his colleagues. Therefore, he must respect those words. Mr. Davis continued:
"I have served two different departments, and three different Secretaries of State".
We should reflect upon those words. Every noble Lord who has spoken tonight has had a special case to make. I do not say that disrespectfully. I have given to your Lordships the words of the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. Perhaps he is disgruntled and in high dudgeon about something. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether or not that is so. However, those are the words of that gentleman on his departure. Before he said that, one would have assumed that Mr. William Davis and his colleagues, although working under difficulties, were satisfied that the Government were doing their best.
I am staggered at how this Government, who boast that they want value for money and improved
336
employment and that they want to assist small businesses, preside over the state of the tourist industry and the tourist boards. The Government have much to their credit but I cannot believe that they are proud of the manner in which they have presided over the industry.
What are we talking about? We are talking about an industry which brings £25 billion into the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, any business which managed to drum up business of that magnitude and yet spend the parsimonious sums in sustaining and improving it that this Government have spent would not survive. The tourist industry is entitled to ask what the Government are playing at. Are they taking for granted that the industry will always survive, that it is resilient and able to keep going?
The Minister must explain to the House the rationale behind cutting down the resources of a successful business; that is, the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. Reference has been made to the fact that funds for the English Tourist Board have been cut from £13.9 million for 1993 down to £10.8 million for 1994 and to £9 million for 1995. By the time that £9 million has been eaten into by regional grants, the board is left with £3 million to promote better tourist opportunities. That is ludicrous and ridiculous. The Minister must go some way towards reassuring me about those matters.
There are 200,000 small businesses which make up the totality of the tourist industry. The Government pride themselves on establishing small businesses. Of course, it is a fact that there are now 200,000 small businesses but they were large businesses when this Government came to power—10 years later the Government have reduced them to being small businesses. They cannot be proud of that. We should look at what other countries do; for example, on the Continent, Japan and America. We should look at what the different states of America spend in encouraging tourists from other countries. What the Government spend is appalling.
In the context of what the Government say they want to do, which is to reduce unemployment and to expand employment, the Government's actions are almost criminal. Reference has been made to the 1.5 million people who are employed in the industry. The Government's present policy in this matter is therefore incomprehensible. Can the Minister tell us the rationale behind cutting down the Section 4 grants to the English Tourist Board over the past few years? They have not only been cut down but have been removed altogether. Comments which have been made in the House tonight need to be addressed.
What is the intention of the Government in respect of the English Tourist Board? Is it the Government's intention to cause its slow death by one means or another? We are all politicians and we can all see the drift and the trend here. How on earth can the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board with a staff of 360—they face about 70 redundancies—do a better job with a 20 per cent. cut in their staff? The Government must give us an answer to that.

337
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, about Yarmouth and Clacton where unemployment has risen to 20 per cent. I smiled when he said those towns were not the Barnsleys and the Doncasters of this world which have always had to suffer high unemployment. The Clactons and the Yarmouths of this world have not been used to unemployment. It is a great pity that some Members of Parliament become concerned about unemployment rates only when they affect their own constituencies while other constituencies have suffered high rates of unemployment for years.
What must the Government do to enable the boards to survive and expand? I do not know now whether I am making a charge or a plea to the Government. However, I assert that the Government's behaviour in this matter is inconsistent with their normal policy. Many noble Lords have said that the Government's jumping from one policy to another and the switching of responsibility from one ministry to another has had a devastating effect on the industry. Other noble Lords have asked whether the Government are taking tourism seriously. I question whether they are. I believe they are taking it for granted. They believe that no matter what they do the industry will survive.
The Government should make a real effort to try to knit together the disparate elements that make up the industry. I am not referring merely to the big businesses and hotels and the Thomsons of this world. I am talking about the little people too. There needs to be a partnership between government and the industry. There needs to be a feeling in the industry that this Government respect and elevate the stature of our tourist industry to the same extent as other governments in other countries do for their tourist industries.
I respect the Minister. He has come to the debate dressed for the occasion and we all appreciate that. He and his honourable friends should demonstrate that they are proud of the success of our tourist industry and are willing to fight their corner. More than once in these debates I have argued the case that we want a tourism Minister to adopt a higher profile. We want a Ministry of Tourism and we want a Minister of Tourism. I say with no disrespect to the Ministers concerned that as long as tourism is tagged on as just another part of an expanding portfolio it will simply be regarded as one other job the Minister has to do in a range of others. I do not believe that that is good enough. Mr Robert Key, the present Minister responsible for this matter, has my highest respect. I have seen him perform and I know he is diligent and takes his job seriously. However, I am concerned that the Government are not taking this issue seriously. I believe the present trend is short-sighted and short-term and the industry is being short-changed by the changes in policy that are being made.
I hope that the noble Viscount will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the debate tonight to convey those views to his colleague. We recognise that decisions are not within his brief, but I cannot believe that he has been other than impressed by the sincerity of the views that have been expressed and the
338
underlying anxiety that there is, if not a crisis, then a crisis of confidence in the Government's attitude towards the industry. I very much hope that the Minister will say something kind for the benefit of the people outside the House. We are hardened politicians, but there are men and women throughout the industry who are worried by the trend and the drift in this matter.
10.35 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, must begin by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mountevans for giving us the opportunity to discuss tourism this evening. I am pleased to have this chance to set out the Government's approach to this important industry, which makes a major contribution to the economic and social well-being of this country.
I am also delighted to be able to pay tribute to the very valuable contribution which my noble friend Lord Mountevans has made to the industry, particularly through his work with the British Tourist Authority.
I should like to endorse everything that has been said about the importance of the industry, particularly the comments of my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Wade. Tourism contributes some £25 billion to the economy, which is the equivalent of 4 per cent. of our total gross domestic product. One and a half million people work in tourism; more than in construction or transport. The United Kingdom, despite climatic disadvantages and despite ever-increasing international competition, is still fifth in the world in terms of tourism earnings.
This is a very successful industry, and one that has made impressive progress in the past 20 years. We know that tourism worldwide has shown astonishing growth. The World Tourism Organisation calculates that international tourism arrivals rose from 25 million in 1950 to 429 million in 1990. The fact that Britain has kept pace with that growth in the past two decades, and that our share of world tourism has been maintained, testifies to the strength of our domestic tourism industry.
A good share of the credit for that record of success goes to the statutory tourist boards and to the non-statutory regional tourist boards, which also receive government support. The boards' role has been to provide leadership and innovation, and to get all the different component parts of this diverse industry working together.
The industry has followed the lead taken by the boards. Trade associations, marketing consortia, and partnerships between sectors and between the private and public sectors have sprung up all over the country. The number of national operators has increased, and they are now exploiting markets opened up by the tourist boards. Short breaks, off-peak breaks, theme and special interest holidays are but a few examples.
Of course fragmentation and diversity are features of the tourism industry and can hinder the fully effective operation of the market. However, the industry has changed and developed over the past 20

339
years, and the Government have to respond to that change by reconsidering their own role in the development of tourism.
That is the background to my department's recent review of tourism policy, the conclusions of which were announced in November by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Public expenditure constraints also reinforce the need to ensure that government funds are used as cost effectively as possible. Thus it is essential to direct the necessarily limited resources available to those areas and activities where the industry is most in need of help.
Our review concluded that the work of the British Tourist Authority in promoting Britain overseas should have top priority. International tourism is fiercely competitive, and Britain would undoubtedly lose out if we did not continue to promote ourselves overseas. Ideally the costs of that marketing would be borne by those who sell the product and who stand to reap the rewards. But the industry, unaided, would not put sufficient money and effort into overseas promotion.
We have therefore decided to maintain the exchequer grant to the BTA at planned levels. The BTA runs an effective overseas operation and one which is recognised as a role model by other countries, particularly in its success in securing a third of its funding in partnership with the industry.
The tourism review also concluded, however, that the case for putting taxpayers' money into domestic tourism promotion is now much less strong. The task is intrinsically easier than overseas promotion since knowledge of the product is much greater among British residents and since individual operators have a much greater chance of reaping direct benefits from investment in promotion.
But the review also found that there are areas of England which do have tourism potential but where the industry is not able fully to exploit that potential unaided. We believe that there is still a case for selective central government investment in areas of this sort, particularly so in those where the growth of tourism could make a contribution to their economic regeneration.
The need for assistance is not uniform across the country. By targeting resources on areas where there is tourism potential we can be better assured of the effective use of grant-in-aid. Funds will be targeted on areas with tourism potential which the industry is unable to exploit fully.
We believe the English Tourist Board still has an important strategic role to play in supporting the development of domestic tourism. The board's expertise in demonstrating to the industry what can be done—for example, national research—and in advising government on tourism matters is still a valuable resource. Its role in directing funds where the industry is most in need of assistance, via the regional tourist boards, will continue.
We believe that there is a central role for the English Tourist Board but with the emphasis on developing and directing the overall strategy rather
340
than carrying out large scale central operations. I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu that we have no plans to abolish the English Tourist Board but we have concluded that an increasing proportion of the available resources should be channelled through the regional tourist boards and that the overall scale of the English Tourist Board's own activities should now begin to reduce as a consequence of the increasing ability of the industry to take responsibility for investing in its own future. We are currently discussing with the English Tourist Board its plans for the future in the light of those decisions.
The review that I described covered the work of the BTA and the English Tourist Board, both of which are the responsibility of the Department of National Heritage. I also wish to say something about the current policy regarding the Scottish Tourist Board on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In Scotland, the Government remain committed to supporting the tourism industry, and the current structure for delivering that support has served the interests of the industry well over many years. Ministers are, however, concerned to ensure that the means by which that support is delivered are still appropriate. They are therefore consulting those involved in the tourism industry in Scotland on whether the existing arrangements are effective, and, if not, on how they might be improved. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, who gave us what one might call a scenic tour of the Clyde, we hope that an announcement on the results of the consultation will be made in the summer.
The Government continue to support tourism through the various statutory bodies. They will also, of course, continue to provide support for many key elements of our national tourism product such as museums, galleries, the built heritage, the royal parks, palaces, the arts and sport. Next year, despite the current difficult public spending round, the Department of National Heritage will spend nearly £1 billion, much of which will directly benefit tourism.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, we are happy to keep this parcel that has been handed to us at the Department of National Heritage. I can also tell him that I have even spoken to the Great Yarmouth Tourist Association, his local area, on the very subject of tourism.
The Department of National Heritage was established to provide for the first time a clear focus within the Government for those activities which lie at the heart of our national life. Those matters are also the life blood of our tourism industry. Our heritage in all its manifestations has been shown by many surveys to be the magnet that draws foreign visitors to our shores. Indeed, if one looks at the activities of the Department of National Heritage, tourism is a core activity and the cement that binds all activities. It is the factor that links all the other tasks.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me about London. The Government are committed to the promotion of London as a world class capital city and as a centre of

341
business, culture and tourism. I agreed with much of' what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said on the importance of London. The formation of the Cabinet sub-committee on London demonstrates the determination of the Government to look at matters affecting the city at the highest possible level, to ensure that policies affecting London are co-ordinated and to ensure that things get done. I should also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the setting up of the Transport Working Group for London, led by a Minister with responsibilities for transport, also illustrates that commitment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it would illustrate a greater commitment and openness of mind if the Cabinet committee would discuss the issues which it is considering with those of us who represent London directly. With the committee's agenda not being public, we are not in a position to give it the support we would like.
Viscount Astor: The noble Baroness may certainly come along to talk to the Ministers involved in that Cabinet committee. Indeed she has been to see the Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage, although I was not at the meeting.
Perhaps I may turn to the London Forum for a moment. The Secretary of State for the Environment has invited Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Metropolitan to chair a new private sector London Forum which will promote London. I am advised that there will be an announcement on membership shortly and that the Forum is likely to be launched in March.
Detailed discussions on the merger with the London Tourist Board are taking place between Sir Allen Sheppard and Sir Hugh Bidwell, the London Tourist Board chairman, who is also deputy chairman of the forum. The London Forum and London First will complement each other. The forum will promote London overseas as a centre for business and finance as well as culture and tourism, whereas London First will concentrate on tackling problems which hinder the promotion of London. They will share a chairman and chief executive, which will help to ensure that they do not duplicate each other's work.
These new bodies will not encroach on the work of the BTA. The essence of the forum is that there will be a small hand-picked group of high profile people with their own network and contacts who can make a strong individual contribution. It is a different body with a different remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also asked me about the funding of the London Tourist Board. I appreciate very clearly the difficulties which the London Tourist Board has experienced in securing local authority
342
funding. However, this is obviously a matter for negotiation with the board and the local authorities. Its funding from the English Tourist Board was £829,000 in the year 1991–92.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about devaluation. There has been a cry from the industry over recent years about devaluation. I cannot claim that the sole reason for the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaving the ERM was the tourist industry, but that has given a major boost to the industry. A competitive pound makes a great deal of difference to the numbers and spending of overseas visitors.
I hope that I have been able to explain our policy towards statutory tourist boards in this country. The Government's recognition of the importance of tourism and our commitment to the industry should not be in doubt. Nor is that commitment to be gauged solely in terms of the funding we provide for the boards. We are determined to provide the framework for the industry to flourish. This means removing barriers to enterprise and unnecessary regulation and allowing the free operation of the market.
Tourism is an industry with 1½ million employees, 6 per cent. of Great Britain's total. There is more employment in tourism than in construction or transport. Employment has grown by 27 per cent. in the past 10 years, compared with 2 per cent. for all employment sectors. Tourism, by its very nature, provides a huge variety and number of jobs across a whole range of industrial sectors and at all skill levels. It is particularly rich in entry level jobs for young people, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out. It offers both full-time and part-time opportunities. Increasingly, it can offer a wide range of vocational qualifications. It is a proven growth sector, with potential for further rapid growth. We look forward to its continued expansion, we recognise its importance. We in the department will do our share to help the industry to realise its full potential.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, would he care to comment on the observations, from his wide experience, of Mr. William Davis, when he resigned?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Mr William Davis was chairman of the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Board for three years. As has been said, we recognise the importance of the work done by both boards over that period.

Damages (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: UK PRESIDENCY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: UK PRESIDENCY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT: RAIL TRAVEL
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT: RAIL TRAVEL
  TRAFFIC SPEED IN LONDON
  TRAFFIC SPEED IN LONDON
  BICYCLING: POLICY
  BICYCLING: POLICY
  BICYCLE: ROUTES IN CITIES
  BICYCLE: ROUTES IN CITIES
  LONDON STRATEGIC BICYCLE NETWORK
  LONDON STRATEGIC BICYCLE NETWORK
  LOW POLLUTION PLANT AND IPC
  LOW POLLUTION PLANT AND IPC
  SHETLAND ISLANDS: SOCIAL FUND ASSISTANCE
  SHETLAND ISLANDS: SOCIAL FUND ASSISTANCE
  GULF WAR: IRAQI CASUALTIES
  GULF WAR: IRAQI CASUALTIES