Sitting of 1 December 1994

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords].
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Forum For Peace And Reconciliation
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways the British Government have participated in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): None. This is an initiative of the Irish Government, within their own jurisdiction, to enable democratic parties to consult and share in dialogue together.
    Mrs. Jackson: Is it not time that the Government built on the real hopes of all the communities in Northern Ireland, which have been increased by the cessation of violence in the past three months? Should not the British Government now agree to send a representative to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which has been established by the Irish Government, especially as they have been invited to do so?
    Mr. Ancram: If I may, I should, first, correct the hon. Lady on a misapprehension. The British ambassador was invited to the opening session of the forum. That is the only invitation that the British Government have received. As for talking to parties, as the hon. Lady is aware, we have been holding bilateral discussions with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland for a considerable time. It has been announced today that a proposal has been made to hold an open meeting for exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein on Wednesday 7 December in Belfast.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Government have announced today that they will talk with the men of blood next week, and as that is highly resented by a vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, will the Minister tell us whether he rules out full-blown talks with the IRA so long as it keeps its killing machine intact and holds on to its guns and explosives?
    Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear over a long period that the exploratory dialogue would have three purposes: first, to explore the basis on which Sinn Fein would come to be admitted to an inclusive political talks process,
    1316
    secondly, to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able, over a period of time, to play the same part as current constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland and, thirdly, to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence. Only after those exploratory talks are completed will the issue that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned arise. He might like to note that the last of the elements of exploratory dialogue would cover the decommissioning of arms.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the southern Irish Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has not been particularly successful in resolving disputes between the Dublin political parties, does the Minister agree that much greater importance should be given to the two forums that the Minister has announced in his own jurisdiction?
    Mr. Ancram: Indeed, those are the forums for which the British Government are responsible. We have great hopes that the investment forum will produce significant benefits for Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although forums are important, the only real way to peace arid reconciliation will be through the paramilitaries on both sides handing in their arms so that those guns and explosives can be taken off the streets arid decommissioned?
    Mr. Ancram: I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friend, who asks an important question, that, if we are to get around the table to discuss the future governance of Northern Ireland and the relationships between the north and the south and, indeed, between the two Governments, then around that table can be only parties that are there on an equivalent basis. Obviously, in that regard, the decommissioning of arms is an important element.
    Mr. Winnick: Whatever may be the political position in the Republic of Ireland, it is a democracy and it will settle its differences in the normal way. Does the Minister agree that its outgoing Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, played a particularly important role in the peace process and that tribute should be paid to him for the contribution that he undoubtedly made in seeking to end the violence in the island of Ireland?
    Are not the Government doing precisely what they promised to do when they said that if violence ended there would be talks? As long as that continues to be the position and the Provisional IRA makes it clear that terrorism will not start again, there is every justification for doing precisely what the Government have said. They have the almost entire support of the House for saying that talks with Sinn Fein should begin.
    Mr. Ancram: Today's announcement is consistent with the Government's policy, as enunciated over a long period.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I pay tribute to the acting Taoiseach—as he now is—for the role that he has played to bring about the present cessation of violence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that a similar tribute must be paid to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his role in that regard.

    Democratic Accountability
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the restoration of democratic accountability to Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We wish to see a much greater degree of democratic accountability restored in Northern Ireland. We hope shortly to publish our own understanding of how that might fairly and workably be achieved, in the context of a wider settlement addressing all the relevant relationships.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State agree that the two economic forums—the one to be held in December in Belfast and the other in mid-January, at which local government representatives will meet the Prime Minister—will have the desirable effect of bringing together the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives so that they may work together in peace, which will in turn lead to the equally desirable objective of enabling them to design between themselves a practical and workable system for the governance of Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Everything that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned can only be beneficial in its effect. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is very anxious that there should be as wide an opportunity as possible for elected representatives covering the whole spectrum of parties and of Northern Ireland to express their views, deriving from their local and elected responsibilities, on how the economy of Northern Ireland can best be progressed.
    Mr. Hunter: With regard to the restoration of democratic accountability, although I warmly welcome this morning's announcement, I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that many people are concerned. Will he take this opportunity to reassure them that this Government will not barter with the IRA, that there will be no surrender of principle and no appeasement and that this Government will not fete or flatter Mr. McGuinness, Mr. Adams and their henchmen because we cannot forget the evil that the IRA has done, and nor should we do so?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of his personal support and for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge that suspicions of the sort he characterised remain. I have dealt with them before, but it is necessary to continue to state that the Government recognise that there are suspicions—on the one side of some clandestine deal and, on the other, that there is an intention to restore an unreformed Stormont Administration. Neither is true and neither is capable of being true, but it is very important that I continue to say so. The Downing street declaration, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed nearly a year ago with Mr. Reynolds, is informing and shaping the future of Northern Ireland, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. McGrady: In his response to the original question, the Secretary of State did not refer in any way to the diminution of democratic responsibility in Northern Ireland in the past couple of years, whereby
    1318
    local representatives have been taken off health and social services boards and are being threatened with removal from education boards. A plethora of quangos have been appointed, as well as nine next steps agencies, and accountability in Northern Ireland, such as it is, has been diminished under this Administration. Are we to wait years before the people of Northern Ireland can get answers to the questions, which they need answers to, about local administrations?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much hope that, implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, is support for the restoration of local democratic accountability in Northern Ireland. I believe that everyone who is concerned about the good governance of Northern Ireland very much believes that that restoration is sorely needed, but it must take place in a way that takes account of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, and as part of an overall settlement. It is rather unjust, and uncharacteristically harsh of the hon. Gentleman, to say that democratic accountability has diminished under the present Administration. I do not think that that has been so at all.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the long historic connection between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is he aware that many Scots are watching with concern the movement towards democratic accountability—of which they approve—as action may be taken that will have a damaging ripple effect on Scotland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am aware of the anxieties to which my hon. Friend refers, but everybody in Scotland has grounds for being extremely thankful that their society and community is not divided in the way that Northern Ireland's is, and that neither are there antagonisms deriving from a history that is special to Northern Ireland.
    Ms Mowlam: I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has had a rather difficult time recently with not only the uncertainty in Dublin but minority government at home and, in the past 24 hours, a fair bit of external pressure. We should like to welcome the beginning of exploratory talks with Sinn Fein next Wednesday. Given the importance of economic changes to the future stability of Northern Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear what the status of Sinn Fein and the former loyalist paramilitaries will be at the Government's economic conference in 12 days?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: On the hon. Lady's original remarks, I must say that I have come to believe that Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are born with difficulties as the sparks fly upwards. None the less, it remains an excellent job to have.

    We have made considerable progress with the investment forum, and acceptances are coming in at a satisfactory rate. We have today decided to write to individual elected members of the two committees concerned with economic development on each of the main city councils, Belfast city council and Derry city council, so that those people—by right of their elected responsibility for the matter in their localities—will have an opportunity to come to the investment conference. The parties involved will, of course, include Sinn Fein if it chooses to come. I believe that that is a proper step to have taken.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the new Taoiseach to discuss the progress of the peace process and other matters.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I look forward to the renewal of our work with the new Irish Government at an early date.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the steps now being taken, including the announcement made today, on the road to a lasting and permanent settlement are a vindication of the Prime Minister's role and that of the acting Taoiseach in making their historic declaration more than a year ago? Is not the joint declaration still a road to peace that the new Taoiseach should take?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course absolutely right. The Downing street declaration was a very simple declaration of fundamental principles. It declared that democracy, and the wishes of most of the people in Northern Ireland, would decide its future. Both Governments are shoulder to shoulder in support of that principle. Parallel with that is the belief that there is no place for violence, and what has happened since the declaration was inevitable.
    Those who were previously using violence to further their political ambitions had to recognise that they must stop, unless they were to declare for all the world to hear that they had realised that they could not get their way by democratic means and that they would go on using the bomb and the bullet. That would have been unacceptable, and recognition of that led directly to what has followed.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the concern that was expressed before the resignation of Mr. Reynolds that the British Government seemed to be moving at a much slower pace than the Irish Government in furthering the peace process, will the Secretary of State stop dragging his feet and arrange talks as soon as possible with the new Taoiseach, with a view to speeding up the peace process?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is an uncomfortable thing to drag one's feet. I am not in the practice of doing so and I have never done so since I took on my responsibilities for Northern Ireland. A lot of criticism was levelled at the British Government initially, when, after the announcement on 31 August, we did not say that it was marvellous and that we would enter into exploratory discussions straight away. That criticism of our caution has died away and I do not hear it now. On the contrary, I hear widespread recognition of the fact that we were wise to be cautious. Widespread recognition has equally been made of the fact that the Prime Minister was right to say in Belfast at the end of October that we were now making a working assumption, which has led us now to make the decision to enter into discussions on 7 December.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the cornerstone of the peace process is not the position of the IRA, or of those who claim to speak on behalf of the loyalist paramilitaries, but the joint action taken by two sovereign Governments, working
    1320
    together to an agreed programme? Nothing should be allowed to interfere with that. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that the core of that agreement is those Governments' joint commitment in the joint declaration of 15 December to remove the cause of conflict, to overcome the legacy of history and to heal the divisions that have resulted?
    Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what action his Government have taken to date to achieve those objectives, or are both Governments planning to allow the principles of the joint declaration to remain on the piece of paper and gather dust as nothing more than principles?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but, as to the second part of it, the underpinning of confidence in Northern Ireland is of critical importance by reason of the suspicions to which I have already referred in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). It has been of critical importance to furthering the objectives to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred that the Government have time and time again repeated that it is acceptance and agreement by most of the people living in Northern Ireland that will determine the future of Northern Ireland, that nothing will be sought to be imposed upon them and that the two Governments mean what they say in the Downing street declaration that democracy will decide the day. That is the most important thing that we could have done, and we have done it well and truly.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Secretary of State meets the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, will he inform him that, in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, there is widespread distrust and suspicion of corruption arising from the failure of the former Prime Minister of the Republic to appoint a High Court inspector to look into the scandalous International Investment fraud, which was operated from Dublin? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge the new Prime Minister to appoint such a High Court inspector as a means of building a little confidence on the way towards peace in Northern Ireland? Can he assure the House that the Northern Ireland Office was guilty of no collusion in assisting the authorities in the Irish Republic to cover up that scandal?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am quite sure that I can offer the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he has requested. I do not think that it is helpful for me to intervene in matters within the jurisdiction of another sovereign state, although they are of undoubted great importance and gravity, and I do not propose to do so.
    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Who will speak for the people of Northern Ireland if the Secretary of State will not?
    Madam Speaker: I shall take points of order after questions.
    Mr. Wolfson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept it from me that his earlier comments on the

    1321
    reasons for and the correctness of his cautious approach to the peace process are widely applauded by the people of Britain?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says, and I take note of it.
    May I just say, Madam Speaker, slightly bending the rules, that, if I failed to appreciate the significance of what the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said, I shall look into it? I may have done so.

    Security Arrangements
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes in security arrangements he intends to make as a result of the IRA ceasefire.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): We have always made it clear that, when terrorism is seen to have ended permanently, but not before, it will be possible to remove the preventive measures that have had to be put in place to protect the community.
    Various adjustments, based on security advice, have already been made, including the lifting of border road closures: the need for other measures is kept under review.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: As it appears that the Government have been pushed by the Americans into advancing those talks, and as this minority Government now depend for their continued existence on the support of the Ulster Unionists, and will therefore find it difficult to treat them impartially in any talks, would it not be sensible to make the one gesture that the Secretary of State can make—withdraw the troops from the streets? A return to normality is the best way of underpinning confidence.
    Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the House that the Government are not pushed in any direction, but take decisions based on the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
    As for the issue of withdrawing troops from the streets, it is for the Chief Constable to decide the level of security arrangements as operational necessity dictates, and local commanders will decide how much support they require from the armed forces in their areas.
    Rev. William McCrea: In view of the stupid question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who knows little about what is happening in the Province, and in view of the visits by members of the security forces to members of my constituency to tell them that they are being actively targeted by the IRA, how can the Prime Minister and Secretary of State agree to the removal of border road closure orders, particularly as many of the people who are under threat live along the border?
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is no stranger to the evil of terrorism, so I fully understand and sympathise with the anxiety that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. However, in removing border road closure orders, the Chief Constable, supported by the Army, takes into account the need to maintain security and to protect people living in border areas.
    1322
    There is no suggestion of reducing the support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the protection of those communities, especially in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware of the unacceptable upsurge in ordinary crime since the ceasefire? Will he give the RUC sufficient resources to combat that more overtly?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman obtains his information, but yesterday I spoke to a divisional chief superintendent, who assured me that ordinary crime had not increased, but that there had been a welcome increase in support for and contact with the police.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that the RUC's resources will remain strong and adequate to deal with the ordinary crime problem and the potential threat of any resumption of terrorism from any quarter.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that the Government will not negotiate with a criminal organisation such as the IRA, or with those who support them, such as Sinn Fein, or drop any hints or give any assurances about the gaol terms to be served by convicts who have been convicted of serious criminal offences, or offer any amnesties to people who have yet to be convicted of serious criminal offences or agree to differential policing arrangements in the Province? Will he assure the House that, whatever happens, we will never allow justice in this country to be politicised?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. There is no question of negotiation on the length of prison sentences. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, there will be no amnesty for those who have been properly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the impartial courts in Northern Ireland; nor is there to be any change in the criminal justice system or the effectiveness of the police service.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that whatever security changes occur in Northern Ireland—and we hope that reductions will be made in security arrangements—the Government must do all in their power to provide jobs and training for those people working in security who will inevitably be made redundant? Will he assure the House that security changes will not mean an easier time in Northern Ireland for the burglar, the so-called joy rider or the drug trafficker?
    Sir John Wheeler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new duties at the Dispatch Box. I assure him that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is developing a series of programmes to deal with the threat of ordinary crime of the kind that he describes. There will no diminution in the resources available to the police service in Northern Ireland or any change in the criminal justice system that would enable ordinary crime to go undetected or unpunished.
    Mr. Robathan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about greater contact between the public and the police. He will know that, notwithstanding the ceasefire, the campaign of intimidation against people

    1323
    in both communities, which involves punishment beatings and expulsions from communities, is continuing and is carried on by both IRA and loyalist groups. As the security forces are now able to go about their business without direct threat to themselves, is my right hon. Friend able to comment on the progress being made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to put criminal thugs who are intimidating communities where they belong?
    Sir John Wheeler: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no excuse at all for those who seek to usurp the law through any pretended duties of policing on the streets of Northern Ireland. The policing of Northern Ireland is a matter for the police service and for no one else. The RUC will vigorously investigate any allegations of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers with a view to making arrests and placing people before the courts.

    Peace Process
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the development of the framework document on the future of Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Useful progress has been made, but there are still substantial questions on which more work is required. We hope to give priority to these in our relations with the new Government in the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition support the strategy of the peace process deployed so far of locking the paramilitaries on both sides into the process and making it impossible for them to go back to their campaign of violence? Does he accept the need to develop a peace process that encompasses the whole spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. When he next goes to Northern Ireland he will be impressed by the quite new sensation of hope that seems to be apparent throughout the community, and the belief that it is unthinkable that violence should return. Those who may be minded to return to violence for political purposes will have to take heed of that. It is necessary that what is called the peace process should continue to retain the confidence of all sections of the community. Therefore, it has to be balanced.
    Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State referred to continuing difficulties with the Irish Government in these discussions. Have the Irish indicated that they will accept their international obligations by dropping the territorial claim in article 2 of their constitution, or are they continuing their blackmailing demand that the unacceptable price for that is some form of tampering with the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and thus the Act of Union?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not recall referring to continuing difficulties with the Irish Government. I said that much more work needed to be done on a number of topics. Obviously, as everybody knows, the question
    1324
    of a territorial claim embodied in the Irish constitution is a matter of great importance in this process. I will not break the confidentiality of the discussions that are going on, but the hon. Gentleman and others will wish to know that the importance of that topic is well understood by this Government and by the Irish Government.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Has the Secretary of State given any further consideration to publishing the minutes of the three-strand talks so that the House would be in a better position to determine how the framework document might throw light on the way in which it can overcome the difficulties that the minutes may highlight?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Quite an important part of the three-strand discussions in 1992 was the fact that they should be in confidence. That was more or less observed at the time. I do not want to go beyond that and publish accounts of what happened two years ago as I do not think that it would be helpful at this juncture.
    Mr. Spellar: While developments are taking place, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put on hold other measures that are opposed by the great majority of people across Northern Ireland—for example, the privatisation of the water industry?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have already made it clear that I do not anticipate introducing proposals in that regard during this Parliament. One matter that will have to be taken account of, at any time, is the very great anomalies in the charging system for water services in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the House unreservedly welcomes the peace process, which brings with it the likely end of direct rule in the north of Ireland. Earlier, he said that he would favour a democratically elected assembly or forum for the north of Ireland. If that is so right—and it is—for the north of Ireland, why is it so wrong for Wales and for Scotland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recall that in, I think, 1976, the question of devolution was referred to the people of Wales and of Scotland and it received a rather negative answer—
    Mr. Canavan: The majority were in favour. The Secretary of State was wrong twice.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That was a very loud Scottish intervention. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point if he stands up in a moment.
    Special factors apply to the community in Northern Ireland that make its governance almost unique. It is difficult to see a reliable read across.

    NHS Community Care Trusts
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the guidelines on market testing in the NHS community care trusts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): Health and social services trusts, including those providing community care services, are subject to Government policy on market testing as set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality". In addition, they have been provided with guidance on the conduct of market testing in the form of a compendium of good practice.
    Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that Government guidelines on the market testing of NHS community care trusts in Northern Ireland are implemented more forcefully there than they are in the remainder of the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that there has been unwarranted Government interference in the operation of trusts, which has led to a deterioration in quality and in standards of patient care? Does he admit that the Government have been two-faced in their policy on health and social services and have acted against the general interests of the public?
    Mr. Moss: The Government's definition of, and policy on, market testing in health and personal social services for Northern Ireland is the same as that applied to all other parts of the health service in the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Lady that the purpose of market testing is to ensure that the resources available are used as effectively as possible for the benefit of patients.
    The results for Northern Ireland show that market testing in health and personal social services has been a great success. For example, up to March 1993, more than £60 million of support services had been market-tested, with identified savings of £11 million per annum.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Does he agree that, wherever market testing has been undertaken, it has produced savings and value for money for the taxpayer? Its opponents are more interested in jobs for the boys than in quality of service to the customer or value for money for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Moss: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome. The savings from market testing are used in the HPSS for the benefit of patients and clients. They are pooled with funds from other cost improvement programmes and the growth moneys provided by Government to fund service developments and meet new pressures.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I, too, welcome the Minister to his position and the shadow Northern Ireland team to its first Northern Ireland Questions today.
    The Minister will recognise that in market testing and contracts it is not always wise to choose the lowest bidder because it usually turns out to be at the highest cost. Is the Minister satisfied that those in community trusts with the responsibility for the most vulnerable in our society at a time of child abuse scandals in the Province are receiving the necessary back-up and the financial support to do the job?
    Mr. Moss: I agree partially with the hon. Gentleman that implementing in-house service level agreements without competition may improve efficiency and effectiveness, but they do not prove that the optimum
    1326
    levels have been achieved, nor do they satisfy market testing criteria. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I take on board the current difficulties in the Province, but I am assured that there is no lack of funds in the social services to meet the needs of the population.
    Ms Mowlam: One important aspect of being cared for in the community is the ability of elderly people to be able to afford to heat their homes. Do the Minister and his colleagues realise that they ignore at their peril the opposition that exists among the people of Northern Ireland and the representatives of all their parties to the imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel?
    Mr. Moss: I recognise the opposition from Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, but I refer the House to the comments in the Budget speech only this week that proper compensation is to be paid to pensioners to compensate for VAT at 17.5 per cent.

    Constituency Boundaries
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the final proposals for constituency boundaries will be published.
    Mr. Ancram: The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has stated that it will not be able to report its final recommendations before 1995. My hon. Friend should approach the Boundary Commission itself for further information concerning the timetable.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the impartiality of the Boundary Commission and its chairman, the House can rest in confidence that there will not be any intended or, I hope, unintended, political effects of the redesignation of the boundaries in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ancram: I totally endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The Boundary Commission is responsible to Parliament. It is independent, and that independence must be respected.
    Mr. Maginnis: What representations have been made from either the Maryfield secretariat, the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin or Dublin Government Ministers through the intergovernmental council to influence the findings of the Boundary Commission? Will the Minister assure us that he has responded by rejecting any approach and by telling Dublin bluntly that the business which is conducted under the chairmanship of Madam Speaker is none of its business?
    Mr. Ancram: That matter has been raised on two occasions at the intergovernmental conference. On both occasions the Irish Government have been reminded of the independence of the commission.

    New Roads
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums he intends to spend on new roads in Northern Ireland in each of the next five years.
    Mr. Moss: Subject to the overall public expenditure situation the Department currently plans to spend about £12 million on major road schemes in each of the next five years.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that none of that money will be frittered away

    1327
    on the restoration of cross-border roads, which would quite possibly be nugatory expense? Will he remember the absolute necessity of massive upgrading on the road between Belfast and Larne?
    Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the importance of the road from Belfast to Larne, but expenditure on roads, including bridges and street lighting, should remain in excess of £150 million per annum during the next three financial years, and the current top expenditure priorities are maintenance, bridge strengthening and traffic control in urban areas. They do not include the border crossing areas.
    Mr. Tim Smith: May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and wish him every success with his new responsibilities? When will the Belfast cross-harbour bridge open, and will it not be a welcome addition to Northern Ireland's road network?
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We hope to open the cross-harbour bridge to traffic in January 1995. It was built at a cost of £60 million—which was in addition to the normal expenditure on roads in the Province.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Downing street declaration continues to underpin our approach to the peace process. We have proposed that exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein shall commence next week. We intend shortly thereafter to do likewise with representatives of loyalists.
    We expect to resume work with the new Irish Government on the joint framework document as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Etherington: Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that nothing will he allowed to stand in the way of progress with talks on the framework document? I refer particularly to the uncertainty of the Dublin Government and to the fact that the British Government are now a minority Government.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The most notable obstruction or difficulty in the way of progress with the joint framework document is that we do not have a new Government in the Republic at the moment. I am confident that the British Government can look forward to a fruitful period of discussion, for as long as necessary, with the new Dublin Government on the joint framework document. I am confident also that all parties in the Republic are as keen as we are to make progress.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had
    1328
    meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the speech made by the French Prime Minister, Mr. Balladur, on the need to resist centralism and federalism in Europe? Is not that speech evidence that the entente is especially cordiale at present, and that the British Government are winning the arguments over the right kind of Europe for the future?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly did read Mr. Balladur's speech. In fact, we discussed what he was likely to say when we met at Chartres a short while ago. I would have been pleased to make the speech that Mr. Balladur made—I nearly did at Leiden. He is right to reject federalism in favour of flexibility, say that we should avoid the encroachment of European institutions on national institutions, and talk of the need to look again at European policies as well as institutions, to keep costs down as we examine the question of enlargement. That is clear confirmation that the arguments made by the British Government for some time are increasingly gaining ground across Europe.
    Mr. Blair: As to value added tax on domestic fuel, given that it is now clear that eight and three quarter million pensioners will not even be eligible for cold weather payments, and given the Prime Minister's specific promise at the last general election that he would not raise VAT, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to Labour's amendment next week, so that the House can vote on whether he has kept his promise?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already had four votes on VAT. He neglected to mention that, in real terms, even after last year's VAT increase of 8 per cent., fuel prices actually fell. The position of the 15 million people who receive compensation for the VAT increase is, in real terms, better than it was before VAT was imposed on domestic fuel.
    Mr. Blair: I gather that the Chancellor is in one-to-one meetings with the Back-Bench rebels over VAT. Would not it be better if all Conservative Members of Parliament had one-to-one meetings with their constituents so that they could know of their anger at the promise betrayed?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends might care to discuss carbon tax with their constituents and explain to them—[Interruption.] Clearly they do not wish to discuss anything with their constituents, such as why they oppose VAT because it is politically expedient for them to do so, and why they propose a carbon tax that would have precisely the same effect on fuel prices.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend outline briefly his Government's policy on the deployment of troops in Bosnia and confirm the House's support for the actions of General Rose?
    The Prime Minister: I most certainly and unequivocally reaffirm the House's support for the actions taken by General Rose. He has had an extremely difficult job. I believe that he has done that job as well as it could have been done by any commanding officer anywhere in the world. If I may say so, I believe that most hon.

    1329
    Members and most people in this country will bitterly resent the criticism of General Rose voiced in some United States newspapers.
    I have seen the arguments and comments about the position in Bosnia. There is no doubt that the position in Bosnia is serious at the moment. I have no doubt about that at all, but I have to say to the House that, if the embargo was lifted and UNPROFOR was forced to withdraw, the position would be even worse, and particularly so for the Bosnians. The belief that that would produce a level playing field is not, in my judgment, right. It would produce a level killing field.
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir David Steel: During the past couple of days, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have tried to persuade us that all their tax increases are something of a temporary aberration from Conservative instincts. Even if that were so, how does he explain the fact that, under this Government, the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers received tax cuts of something like £47,000 on average, while the low-paid have seen their taxes increase by about £400 a year? Is not that a permanent feature of Conservative instincts?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is a permanent feature of Conservative instincts: the fact that real, disposable net incomes, at all levels, have risen. That, of course, is what affects people's living standards. Post-taxation, they have more spending power in their pockets than they had before. That is undoubtedly the case right the way down the scale and, I believe, will remain the case.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to get the unemployed back to work is to give them incentives and training, and not to bash business men with a minimum wage and a training levy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. Priority is given to getting the unemployed back to work. We have seen unemployment fall more dramatically in this country than in any other European country. There was a wide range of measures in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget which will add to that return to work.
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Connarty: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice of the all-party group on pensions that, despite the Government's compensation package, the individual pensioner will be 56p a week worse off if VAT on fuel rises to 17.5 per cent? In the light of that, will he tell his hon. Friends who are committed to defending pensioners against that attack to stick by their principles next week?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say to the Leader of the Opposition
    1330
    just a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the consistent position that we have taken about VAT on fuel and the consistent position that the House has endorsed on at least four occasions.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern expressed by many of our constituents about people who are not ordinarily resident in this country coming here to litigate their disputes in the English courts at the British taxpayers' expense on legal aid? Will he consider withdrawing civil legal aid from such people in future?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am aware of the concern that has arisen. As my hon. Friend knows, the matter is very complex, but it raises a great many concerns among many people in the country. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is still committed to the Rio environmental targets, and in particular to efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If he is committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, how will that commitment be financed? Does he accept that the Government's policy was to use the Energy Saving Trust, and that so far the trust has virtually no money with which to reach its targets?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question.
    We are currently considering a range of options for funding the trust, including the involvement of private sector finance and input from the energy consumer. We remain totally committed to meeting the targets to which I signed up at Rio, and with that in mind the trust has already prepared a plan setting out how it intends to proceed towards its contribution to carbon emission reduction as part of the climate change reduction programme.
    I would add that our decisions regarding VAT on fuel have a strong environmental impact.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: What does my right hon. Friend think of the trench warfare being conducted against grant-maintained schools by Labour-controlled councils, particularly Kent county council? Kent has vetoed the only application for a new nursery unit in Gravesend because the school is grant-maintained.
    What does my right hon. Friend think of a man who is prepared to reject all the schools in his Labour-controlled borough, and to sneak his son eight miles across Greater London to a grant-maintained school?
    The Prime Minister: I have no comment to make about any right hon. or hon. Member who seeks the best

    1331
    for his or her children; I am sure that we would all do that. My only criticism would be that the policy for everyone should not be to remove the same choices from millions of other people.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the latest figures, the average household fuel bill in Northern Ireland is 27 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he explain why the VAT compensation package announced on Tuesday failed to take that difference into account?
    The Prime Minister: As Northern Ireland would be the first to accept, we are a united kingdom as a whole, and our legislation stretches across the United Kingdom: that position is taken very firmly by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. It is also true that we see from Government support across the United Kingdom—I take these figures broadly from memory—that the degree of underlying public support for Northern Ireland is substantially higher than that for other parts of the United Kingdom. The figure for Scotland is substantially above that for Wales, and the figure for Wales is substantially above that for England. It is in that way that we seek to ensure a proper equity of support for services and people throughout the United Kingdom.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Following my right hon. Friend's talks with the Republican leader Senator Dole, will he confirm that he made it clear to the senator that, whatever the differences may be over Bosnia, they should not be allowed to undermine the commitment of his country and ours to the Atlantic alliance?
    The Prime Minister: I had an extremely useful exchange with Senator Dole. We spent some time considering the Atlantic alliance and there is no doubt whatever about Senator Dole's whole-hearted support for NATO, both now and in the future.
    Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Morris: The Prime Minister has been asked three times this afternoon to justify his policy on VAT; three

    1332
    times he has failed to answer the question. Does he accept that, no matter what he says, pensioners do not believe him, because they know that an extra £1 a week will not pay their bills? Why has the Prime Minister betrayed the pensioners of the nation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may have repeated a question that has been asked before, but she should have listened to the answers. In reality, we have put in place a generous package to compensate not only pensioners but others for the effects of VAT.
    Mr. Connarty: Not enough.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Not enough," and that is just another illustration of the fact that the Opposition claim that they would not put up taxes, they oppose every tax increase, but they would choose to put up expenditure and have no idea how they would fund any one of their policies. That is not new Labour: it is the old Labour that the electorate have rejected time after time.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend think that many people in this country would support the legalisation of cannabis or the party that advocates it?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly would not support the legalisation of cannabis, and I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country would support it either.
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hutton: Why has the Prime Minister sanctioned the dismissal of 600 uniformed front-line customs officers this week? Does he agree with the Paymaster General that the dismissal of those 600 officers will compromise the Government's fight against illegal drugs and pornography?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) asked that question on Tuesday and I told him then that it will not. Since then I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the chairman of Customs and Excise and she confirms that it will not.
    Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I have two statements first.

Local Government Finance
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority finance settlement for England for 1995–96.
In forming my proposals, I have listened carefully to the views of local authorities and their associations, and I have considered fully the demands which will be placed on local authorities in the coming year.
I have also given weight to the interests of the economy as a whole, and in particular the Government's objective of reducing the public sector deficit. Local government accounts for around a quarter of general Government expenditure and has been rigorously examined, as have all other spending programmes. I have had regard to the level of inflation, with the retail prices index increase to October at 2.4 per cent., and the underlying rate currently the lowest for decades.
Thanks to the Government's firm control of inflation, the resources available to local authorities this year are worth considerably more than they otherwise might have been or than local authorities expected them to be. I have also taken into account our policy that increases in pay and prices within the public sector must be met through greater efficiency and economy. It is clear that many authorities have considerable scope to increase their efficiency.
That is the background to the aggregate figures I published on 29 November. The Government's view is that the appropriate level of revenue spending for local authorities in England in 1995–96 will be £43.511 billion. Central Government grant and income from non-domestic rates in support of that expenditure will be £34.672 billion.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 4 November that the Government propose to make available in 1995–96 a special grant of £647.6 million for the further increase in the number of people needing community care. That amount is included in the figures that I have just quoted. The figures also reflect some minor changes in local authorities' functions next year and a separate provision of £50 million for the transitional costs of local government reorganisation.
My proposal, including provision for community care and reorganisation costs, provides for a 2.2 per cent. increase in local authority spending year on year, including the spending of police authorities. Leaving aside the increase in provision for community care, my proposal still amounts to an increase in provision of just under 1 per cent. year on year. In allocating that sum between services, we have decided to give priority to education and to the police.
On 29 November, I announced that the distributable amount of non-domestic rates in 1995–96 should be nearly £11.4 billion and I am today publishing details of the distribution. I proposed that the revenue support grant should be £18.32 billion. In addition, some £5 billion of specific and special grants would be available.
I turn now to the means of distributing revenue support grant. At its heart is the standard spending assessment for each authority. Last year, we carried out a thorough review of SSAs in partnership with the local authority associations, although each of the associations tends to
1334
have a different series of priorities from the other, naturally reflecting its own interests in the matters about which it is concerned.
For this year, we have brought up to date our data on the SSA indicators wherever we can. That has been beneficial to authorities in inner London in particular. Aside from those data changes, I propose a year of relative stability in the methodology used to distribute resources among local authorities, which had to deal with a significant change last year. I felt that stability was the most important element this year. I know that many councils will welcome that because they were apprehensive that the sometimes large fluctuations in SSA would be repeated, even though those changes were damped. Last year, that damping helped many councils.
My proposed changes are quite limited and I shall not list them here, with two exceptions. First, we have revised the formula for the fire service SSA to take account of various factors that lead to higher costs in some authorities, and the formula for authorities such as Cornwall and the Isle of Wight, which have particular coastal problems.
Secondly, the police authorities reforms that we have put in place this year have made it necessary for the financial arrangements to be changed considerably. For many years, just over half police expenditure was met by a specific grant from the Home Office. Now, the police specific grant will be cash limited and distributed using the same formula as for police SSAs. In the past, that formula has been based on numbers of police in establishments approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. From 1995–96, however, the Home Secretary will no longer approve such establishments. It follows that a new formula is needed.
There has been considerable work by representatives from the police and the local authority associations, along with the Home Office and my Department, to find the most satisfactory way of representing the needs for spending on police. We considered the new analyses in the context of factors that have previously been used to assess expenditure needs and of the scope for further work to be undertaken on the formulae.
We concluded that, for 1995–96, the size of the approved police establishment should be included as an indicator in the funding formula. As a result, the extent of change next year will be limited. It assists in providing stability and continuity of policing. The Home Office and my Department will carry out further work on the formula in 1995.
I propose that the change in police SSA and specific grant will be damped by a special grant in 1995–96 where they are reduced by more than 2 per cent. as a result of the changes. That is part of a policy to ensure that, where there are necessary changes in the money going to a local authority, and where the changes are above what can reasonably be borne in a particular year, a damping system to help them is in place. That grant will be paid to support expenditure by police authorities, cushioning the impact on council tax payers.
In view of the limited nature of my remaining SSA changes I do not propose to damp those. However, I propose to continue to damp the effects of the large changes made last year; that will be an encouragement to many local councils. In 1994–95 we are paying SSA reduction grant to protect council tax payers from the

1335
effects of the 1993 SSA review and the incorporation into SSAs of detailed data from the 1991 census. Grant is paid to authorities whose SSAs were reduced by more than 2 per cent. I propose a similar grant in 1995–96 in respect of the same changes, the threshold to be a further 2 per cent. I know that that will be widely welcomed.
The council tax has now been in operation for two years, and is well established as an equitable means whereby local residents contribute to the cost of local services. Council taxes will vary widely, depending on the spending decisions of each local authority and its performance in collecting the tax, on the circumstances of each household, and on individual entitlement to exemptions or benefits. There is therefore practically no meaning in talk about average taxes within or between authorities.
I remind the House that when we announced the figures last year it was widely reported that they would automatically lead to a 6 per cent. increase in council tax, but that in the event the increases amounted to only about 2.2 per cent. I therefore warn the House again that at this point there is no way of assessing any kind of average tax increase.
However, I am required to identify notional taxes for each valuation band for a standard level of spending—the so-called council tax for standard spending, or CTSS. [Interruption.] Had Opposition Members listened to the corresponding part of my statement last year they might not have gone out frightening people with figures that turned out to be entirely wrong. So I hope that this year they will listen.
My proposals incorporate a CTSS of £491 for band C. I emphasise to the House that that is merely an element in the grant distribution formula. If hon. Members remember that, the faults and mistakes of last year will not be repeated. It is neither a prediction of individual council tax bills nor a national average.
When the council tax was introduced in April 1993 we promised a scheme of transitional relief for at least the first two years, to help those facing the largest increases above their community charge bills. At present 1.4 million households benefit from transitional relief and many would face a considerable increase in their bills if it ended this year. I therefore propose to make available £30 million to enable transitional relief to continue for a further year. Relief in 1995–96 will be withdrawn at the same rate as in 1994–95; taxpayers will receive last year's relief less an amount ranging from £67 a year for band A to £137 a year for band H.
I also propose to remove the requirement for local authorities to repay community charge transitional relief grant, community charge reduction scheme grant and council tax transitional relief grant, in respect of charges that are written off or remain uncollected. I do not propose to make any change in the arrangements for recoupment of community charge grant.
I shall now deal with capping. We remain determined that local authorities should make a full contribution to the control of public expenditure, and should set budgets that their local taxpayers and the country can afford. I am today announcing my provisional capping criteria for 1995–96. I am also issuing proposals for the calculation of notional amounts for those authorities whose boundaries or functions will change from 1 April 1995, for reasons that include the transfer of responsibility for
1336
the police service from county councils to the new free-standing police authorities, and the reorganisation of the Isle of Wight. Those figures are the base from which I shall measure increases in budgets when determining whether those increases are excessive.
In addition, my provisional capping criteria make allowance for that expenditure on care in the community which is met this year by the special transitional grant, and for the abolition of inter-authority recoupment payments in respect of most pupils. Those adjustments allow a fair year-on-year comparison of budgets.
Where budgets are very substantially above SSA, I intend again to seek budget reductions. My general intention is that the provisional capping criteria should allow larger year-on-year increases for authorities with budgets closer to their SSAs than for those with relatively higher budgets. I have had particular regard, however, to the effect of our settlement proposals on the year-on-year change in provision for spending by different classes of authority.
My current intention is that there should be different criteria for police authorities and inner London boroughs than for all other authorities, reflecting the fact that those classes of authority have somewhat larger increases in aggregate SSA provision than others.
I must acquaint the House with the effect of my intended criteria. I am sorry that this is a detailed matter, but it needs to be put in the public domain clearly. First, for police authorities, any increase of more than 2.5 per cent. over 1994–95 will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement above the authority's SSA plus police grant. Any increase of more than 1.5 per cent. over 1994–95 will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement more than 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA plus police grant. Any increase of more than 0.5 per cent. over 1994–95 will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement more than 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA plus police grant.
For inner London boroughs the criteria will be comparable, but with increases of 2 per cent., 1.25 per cent., and 0.5 per cent. For all other authorities, any increase of more than 0.5 per cent. over 1994–95 will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement above the authority's SSA. In addition, I intend that any budget requirement more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA will be considered excessive, save that an authority will not be designated if it fulfils certain conditions equivalent to those which have applied in previous years.
Those criteria are necessarily provisional. I cannot take my decisions on capping until authorities have set their budgets for 1995–96. When I come to take those decisions, I shall of course take into account all relevant considerations.
In presenting this statement, I must emphasise that my Department is today writing with details of the settlement to every local authority in England. That package includes a consultation paper setting out how we propose to distribute central Government support between authorities, including my proposals on SSAs, for continuing to damp SSA losses from 1994–95 and for the new police authorities. It gives details of the proposed council tax transitional relief scheme. It sets out my

1337
provisional capping criteria and it includes my proposals for notional amounts. Copies of the package have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
The proposals that I have outlined today represent a balanced and reasonable response to the conflict between the pressure to provide ever more resources for local government and the need to control public spending. I promised the local authorities that I would not seek to present the proposals in anything other than a direct factual way and that I would, above all, insist that the settlement, although tough, was one that could be worked within. Therefore, I have sought neither to underplay the difficulties nor to overplay the advantages. So I am sorry that I have to end by drawing attention to a factual inaccuracy in some of the statements that have already been made.
You will know, Madam Speaker, that at the beginning of the year the standard spending assessment, gathered up together with other grants, reaches what is known as the total standard spending. That is the amount of money that the Government expect local authorities to be able to work within. That is assessed before the year in this statement. That is what we are talking about today—our assessment now. At the end of the year we discover that local authorities inevitably have spent more than that. They draw down from balances, they find money from various activities and they spend more than that. In those circumstances, we need to compare either the beginning-of-year figure from one year with that of another to get a fair measure, or the end-of-year figure. We cannot compare the beginning-of-year figure for one year with the end-of-year figure for another. That is precisely what local government organisations have done, however, to try to pretend that the package means a cut of £1.5 million. They have done so by comparing what they ended up with last year with what we are suggesting as the standard spending requirements, the TSS, for this year—a wholly fictitious figure.
Mr. Frank Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Gummer: For the hon. Gentleman to say anything about not knowing what he is talking about after his performance at Question Time yesterday would make Conservative Members extremely suspicious. The TSS will increase next year by £935 million, after adjusting for changes in the way in which the organisation operates. I do not claim that that represents anything other than a tough settlement, but one has to tell the truth rather than mislead the people of Britain by pretending otherwise.
Mr. Dobson: As we wake ourselves up after 20 minutes of moderate tirade from the Secretary of State, I can say for a start that the settlement is a bad deal for council tax payers throughout England. Next year, they will pay more and get less.
On the Government's figures, which were issued on Tuesday, the council tax will have to increase next year by an average of 6 per cent., which is more than twice the rate of inflation. According to their published figures, the Government expect council tax payers to cough up an extra £2.8 billion in the next three years, which is equal
1338
to almost 1.5p in the pound on the standard rate of income tax—another tax increase that the Chancellor did not quite get round to mentioning on Tuesday.
The deal is also bad for anyone who uses local services because councils will be forced to cut back. Next year, the cash available to councils for local services will be £1.5 billion less than they are spending this year. That figure makes no allowance for increased demand, for example, from the 110,000 extra pupils who will go to school, the increasing number of old people, inflation or any pay settlements that will have to be reached. The simple truth is that next year people will pay more council tax and get fewer services in return.
The Secretary of State said earlier this week that local services will not suffer. Tory Secretaries of State have said that every year, but it has never been true. Behind all the jargon and the fiddled figures, in real towns, cities and villages throughout the country, real people have suffered and will suffer further.
Let us take housing. In 1979, councils in England built 66,724 new homes, but last year the total was 1,235. In the mean time, rents have soared. How many new homes will councils build this year? Will it be more, or even less? I challenge the Secretary of State to deny the fact that average council rents will increase next year by three times the rate of inflation.
Look at what has happened to school meals. In 1979, 64 per cent. of school children took school meals. Last year, it was only 43 per cent. and that is because the price has increased from 20p in every school in England in 1979 to more than £1.20 in some areas today. With record levels of child poverty, will the Secretary of State tell us what will happen to school meal prices next year as a result of the settlement? Will they go up or down?
Let us take class sizes. Primary school classes are 9 per cent. bigger today than they were 10 years ago, and the same is now happening with secondary school classes. Can the Secretary of State tell us, since he says he is giving special priority to education, whether class sizes will go up again next year or down?
When compared with 1979, the number of meals on wheels served by luncheon clubs has slumped from 15 million to 7 million. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the new settlement will allow councils to reverse that trend, or whether the number of meals will fall again?
Everybody knows that care in the community is not working properly. People who cannot cope are walking the streets, and others have to put up with neighbours who cannot help being a nuisance because no one is looking after them and because there are no acute or secure beds available in a crisis. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that this settlement will mean that enough funds will go to councils and the health service next year to resolve what everybody recognises is a crisis in community care?
The Secretary of State knows that the settlement will drive up the council tax and lower the standards of council services for local people. He will try to shift the blame on to local councils, but I must warn him that he will not succeed. Local people have seen through the Tories' lies. Forcing people to pay more to get less will not work any more.
Mr. Gummer: It is difficult for someone to grasp how things work at the beginning, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should have done more homework than that.

1339
First, the hon. Gentleman talked about housing capital, when today's announcement is about revenue. We are talking today about revenue expenditure, and housing capital issues do not arise in the announcement. We can have that argument with him on an other occasion. The hon. Gentleman threw that in because he thought that it might have something to do with the announcement.
We must judge the hon. Gentleman also on the fact that he repeated his misunderstanding of the figures. The £1.5 billion to which he referred is totally untrue. He is comparing totally different figures from one year to another year, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for misleading the House. The House can forgive him only because he has not been doing the job long enough to know the difference between the TSS and the budgets of local councils and their spending at the end of the year. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he should do his homework before he comes here, and not dump a load of old rubbish in front of the House.
The same is true about the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of successive Tory Secretaries of State. His predecessor, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), tried to play the same kind of game. He said, for example, that a settlement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State for the Environment would mean job losses for teachers.
Mr. Jack Straw: That was true.
Mr. Gummer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has just come in. He says that that was true, and he said that there would be job losses among teachers in one year, the next year and the year afterwards. I now have the figures—395,000 schoolteachers in the first year, 396,000 schoolteachers in the second year and 397,000 schoolteachers in the third year. The hon. Gentleman was wrong about every year. That is what the Opposition say every year, and every year they have been proved wrong. But the hon. Gentleman never comes to the House and says, "Madam Speaker, I would like to make a personal statement. I was wrong in what I said." The hon. Gentleman has never done that.
The hon. Gentleman's successor, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, was wrong in the way in which he attacked the settlement. Sadly, he was wrong in a worse way than the hon. Member for Blackburn, because his hon. Friend had at least done his homework and understood how the system worked.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are not having a debate at this stage. I shall now want brisk questions if hon. Members wish to be called. I am not sure that all hon. Members who wish to be called will be, and they certainly will not be called if we go on at this pace. I now want brisk questions and brisk answers from the Minister.
Sir Peter Fry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the second year running, Northamptonshire will have a disappointing settlement? Is he aware that, as a result, it is highly likely that many teachers will have to be made redundant because of the
1340
need to finance a new pay rise? Will he bear that fact in mind when he comes to make a decision on the capping of Northamptonshire county council?
Mr. Gummer: Although it is true that, last year—and this year, in advance—hon. Members representing Northamptonshire drew to my attention that they thought then, and feared now, that Northamptonshire had received less SSA than it should have done, its settlement was above the average last year. I hope that the outcome 'will be the same this year, but until the figures are agreed with the local authorities, I cannot be sure of that. If Northamptonshire has particular problems, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about them.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that staff salaries are by far the biggest part of education costs and that pupil numbers are going up in many areas? The efficiencies that must be achieved to pay for staff salary increases must mean that teachers will be sacked and that pupil-staff ratios will deteriorate.
Mr. Gummer: The fact is that local authorities will be able to decide how to spend their money. We have specifically insisted that significant extra resources should go into education, but it is for local authorities to decide their priorities. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that the priority of many local authorities will be to ensure that the requisite number of teachers is available. That means that, if savings are necessary, they will have to be found in other areas. It is for local authorities to make that decision. Frankly, we are asking local authorities to do only what is already being asked of a large part of government and what private companies have had to do year in, year out during the recession through which we have now passed.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the position of Cornwall, particularly in the light of the thoroughly predictable annual exercise by the majority group on the county council, the Liberal Democrats, who, a week before every settlement, always prophesy doom and gloom and claim that the county council's finances will be thrown into chaos? Will he accept from me and other Conservative Members our thanks for at last doing something about the SSA for the fire service, which will benefit the people of Cornwall and the population of the Isles of Scilly?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope very much that those improvements will be widely welcomed in my hon. Friend's county. I am sorry that the county council has gone in for that popular activity of presenting a wish list for the kind of budget it might have had if everyone gave it every penny to fund everything it wanted—only to complain that it did not even get that money. It is important for the people of Cornwall to recognise that the SSA is a fair settlement—it is not an easy one—in which the county has been particularly carefully looked after, not least because my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised with me the difficulties in the far west.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the SSA for Newham is £259.5 million? Does that include or exclude the supplementary transitional grant for community care? Bearing in mind the fact that, according to statistics, Newham is the most deprived borough in the country, is

1341
the right hon. Gentleman aware that £20 million must be deducted from education and community care due to defective formulae for homelessness and capital repayments? Is not that unjust by the standards of the old testament, let alone the new testament?
Mr. Gummer: By any of those standards, Newham has one of the highest SSAs of any part of the country. One cannot suggest that we have been other than very conscious of the particular problems of Newham. I cannot comment on the details for this year, because we have to agree with the local authorities the methodology upon which the details will be based. I am not prepared to offer any relevant figures for which the methodology has not been agreed by those authorities. That will be done as rapidly as possible, and I will then be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the effect on Newham.
Sir Anthony Grant: On the police, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Cambridgeshire has fewer police officers per head of population than any other county in the land. Can he assure me that the representations I persistently made about that to the Home Office have been taken into consideration when deciding the settlement for Cambridgeshire? Will he also assure me that the new arrangements will mean that the Lib-Lab county council will not be able to tinker with the money allocated and salt it away for other purposes?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for his constant pressure in relation to this issue. Cambridgeshire county council tackles those matters very badly, but we have tried hard to ensure that legitimate demands are met as regards the police. I think that my hon. Friend will find that there has been a significant increase in the settlement.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on that statement, and I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French).
I am all for prudent public expenditure, except in Gloucestershire. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will take on board my annual plea to reconsider the area cost adjustments element of the SSA, bearing in mind the fact that there should be some taper out from London rather than a sudden line saying, "There is Oxfordshire, which is eligible for ACA; there is Gloucestershire, which is not."
When my right hon. Friend reconsiders the method of funding the police forces, will he remember that there are three royal residences in my constituency, which require full-time permanent protection? That is very different from a temporary requirement arising from, for example, a party political conference.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that. We have already moved in the direction of a tapering system for the area cost adjustments, and I think that he will be pleased at the way in which we have sought to take on board many of the requests that he and other hon. Members made, although we have not been able to meet all of them.
1342
We have also accepted that the real need is to try to move more closely towards travel-to-work areas. That is another aspect that I hope will be taken into account, but I cannot now tell my hon. Friend whether it will have the effect in Gloucestershire that he so sorely needs.
As for the police, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is on the Bench, and no doubt will have taken note of that.
Mr. George Stevenson: Does the Secretary of State realise that if local authorities—especially Labour ones—have used their balances to protect local services, it is because that is what local people want, despite the Government onslaught against local government finance? If the 2.2 per cent. overall settlement is to include special transitional grant, does the Secretary of State accept that that is a cut in real terms which will have serious effects, especially in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which I represent?
Mr. Gummer: I do not suggest that the settlement that I have announced will provide Stoke-on-Trent, or any other part of the country, with a considerably increased amount of money to spend on a range of things. I never suggested that. I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is sufficient grant, and local authorities have sufficient resources, to provide the services of a high standard that they should provide, without the fearsome cuts that the hon. Gentleman suggests will be necessary. That is all that I am saying, and I think that it can be achieved.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will ask local authorities in his constituency to use some more of their balances, if they have them. Other local authorities will also make those decisions. It is up to them; that is what they need to do. If we want local democracy, people must decide how to spend their money.
Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Secretary of State accept that a half per cent. capping increase for most local councils is a draconian settlement, which cannot be achieved without substantial cuts in services? Does he realise that outside the House he will go down as "Gummer the Godfather"? His hand may not be on the knife that makes the cuts, but he will be responsible for organising them behind the scenes.
How does the Secretary of State explain to schools, which account directly for about half local government expenditure, how to make efficiency savings? Is not the reality that they will have to sack teachers and increase class sizes, which are already running at 35, and are increasing to 38, 40 and beyond in my constituency?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Go on, Scarface.
Mr. Gummer: On the Government Benches, the word "godfather" is rather a polite one, so I shall take it in the most polite sense. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that if Sheffield city council did not have such a mess to clear up, it would not have the difficulties that it has, and the hon. Gentleman is the last person in the House to lecture anyone on how to run a local authority. He left behind a mess that the present Labour-run authority is having difficulty clearing up, and I have real sympathy with it.
Mr. Barry Field: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the welcome news—the culmination of a 32-year campaign—to revise the standard spending

1343
assessment for the fire service on the Isle of Wight will bring welcome relief to the hard-pressed community care budget? Does he agree that, if he and I had £1 for every time that the Opposition tell us that it will be the end of local government, we should have repaid the national debt five times over?
Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that that is entirely what we could have done, but we might have been able to help Sheffield to clear up the mess in which it was left. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister accept that when my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others use figures they are adopting the methodology used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget? Like everybody else, he does not use year-on-year measurements. That was what my hon. Friend was doing in terms of showing the difference between the amount that is spent in any given year by local authorities, and the amount that he proposes they should spend in the next year. Why does not the Minister admit that, cumulatively, over the past 15 years, well over £50 billion has been taken by the Government from local authorities? That is what creates misery for pensioners and schoolkids and all the others. That is why we in Derbyshire are calling for more money.
Mr. Gummer: First, the hon. Gentleman comes from a county whose mismanagement is recognised even by the rest of the Labour party. For that reason the hon. Gentleman cannot teach the House how to run local authorities. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should remember that it is not sensible statistically to compare a figure in one year with a wholly different figure in the next year. That is done only if one wishes to mislead and that is what the local government associations wish to do. It is what the Opposition have tried to do, and the Opposition spokesman has done it accidentally because he does not understand it.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there will be a general welcome in Cumbria for the extra £180 million for the police, some of which will go to Cumbria police authority? That extra money refutes the malicious rumours put around some weeks ago about cash cuts. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a great pity that Liberal and Labour councillors in Cumbria have already had their feet in the trough and have voted, against Conservative opposition, to grant themselves an increase of between 400 and 500 per cent. in attendance allowances for members of the regional authority?
Mr. Gummer: I do not know of the particular decisions of Cumbria county council, but, obviously, there are many areas in which savings can be made. For example, I have looked carefully at the London borough of Camden, where the opportunities for savings are considerable, although that borough is much overburdened by the fact that it is still paying for large debts that were incurred when some hon. Members were councillors in Camden. If the Liberal-Labour group in Cumbria is behaving in that way, it is typical of Lib-Lab pacts all over the country.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, despite what he has said about community care, county councils such as that in
1344
Lancashire will have to continue cutting services for the most vulnerable sections of the community? Will he assure us that county councils will have sufficient funding to provide those essential services?
Mr. Gummer: Lancashire county council has been pinpointed by Labour Members as inefficient. The former Opposition spokesman on local government, the hon. Member for Blackburn, spent a great deal of time explaining that he wanted his district council to take over the functions of Lancashire county council because it was so poor. I should have thought that Lancashire county council could certainly find ways to safeguard front-line services.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to concentrate so much of the settlement on supporting the police in their fight against crime will have widespread support? Can he confirm that every police force will benefit from the extra cash and that nearly two thirds of all forces, including police in Staffordshire, will benefit by 3 per cent. or more?
Mr. Gummer: I can certainly confirm those improvements. I notice that only from the Conservative side has there been support and praise for extra help for the police. That is because the Conservative party cares about law and order, while those in opposition only talk about it.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, despite smears from some of his hon. Friends, which they immediately retract when challenged, Birmingham city council is acknowledged under all objective criteria and by the Audit Commission as being well run. Can he confirm that Birmingham will lose a further £18 million in grant this year, and that that is equivalent to more than £1 a week for the average council tax payer? These are hidden taxes for the people of Birmingham so that the Government can save money in their coffers to hand out next year in tax cuts. They will applaud themselves for that, although it will just be handing back to people money that they have already paid.
Mr. Gummer: If the figures were anything like the hon. Lady suggests, Birmingham would benefit considerably from the damping grant, which is much more generous than anybody thought it would be. She should note that if, over the past three years, we had accepted the demands of Birmingham and other Labour councils—supported by the associations and promoted by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen—we would have had to increase VAT to almost 21 per cent. to pay for them, or, if the Opposition prefer, add £510 to the average council tax. That would be the effect of what the Labour party wants us to do—and has wanted us to do for the past three years, never mind what would have happened cumulatively as a result of what it had demanded previously.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is a most welcome settlement that is relatively generous in the context of the whole Budget package, which had to produce a cut in the budget deficit of £8.5 billion? Does he agree that, if local authorities were to make as much effort as most private companies had to make during the recession, and as the Government are now doing with the freeze in running costs, those councils would have saved sufficient money through

1345
improved efficiency and by cutting the number of unnecessary administrators to prevent any reduction in service?
Mr. Gummer: It is absolutely essential for local authorities to find ways of using efficiency gains to ensure that they can protect their front-line services. As my hon. Friend said, the only alternative would be to increase taxation. I repeat that VAT would have to rise to 21 per cent. to fund the Labour party's proposals. I do not believe that the country wants that, so we must save the money through improved efficiency.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Secretary of State plays around with statistics the public become angry, as we do. Why does not he come to my constituency, where I will take him to areas of great deprivation in which the local authority provides the only machinery capable of dealing with the problems? Does he realise that, in constituencies such as mine, it is the vulnerable, the elderly, the children and disabled groups who will have to pay the price? Why does he not recognise that when he makes statements to Parliament?
Mr. Gummer: I recognise that the taxpayer is paying £34.672 billion to ensure that those vulnerable people are cared for properly. The whole system of SSAs is designed to ensure that the money goes mainly to those places where the need is greatest. That is how the system works. When people hear figures, they want them to be accurate and they want accurate comparisons. People get angry when the Labour party compares apples with pears and figures from one end-of-year with figures from another to try to mislead the public.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be encouraged to marry with the private sector for the funding and development of, for example, public buildings? Therefore, can he assure me that local authorities' notional capital spending for guarantees given to the private sector for the funding of and participation in, for example, the building of an exhibition hall, will not be prevented by a rigid capping procedure?
Mr. Gummer: I have just introduced some proposals for loosening considerably the arrangements for those local authorities which wish to enter into reasonable arrangements with the private sector. I have asked the local authorities to come back to me with their views on that, but I have already put many of the proposals into operation so that no one need be held up. If my hon. Friend has any particular points to make on that, I hope that he will come and see me, because I am determined to bring the private sector as much as possible into the activities of local authorities. I very much honour those authorities that are doing that and I am pleased to find that, after all the years of opposition, quite a number of Labour-controlled authorities have now joined us.
Ms Kate Hoey: When looking at the SSA for Lambeth, will the Secretary of State consider some extra resources, in particular to meet the difficult and
1346
sensitive problem that the borough has to face of finding extra resources for the homeless people who sleep in the bull ring, which will be closed fairly soon?
Mr. Gummer: We are in detailed discussions about those matters and I have considerable sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady raises. She, like us, operates against a background of a council which does not have a good reputation for collecting its rents or rates, or doing anything else. However, we must still look carefully at the matter. Lambeth is one of the worst councils and has been one of the worst councils for a long time.
Mr. Skinner: It is not as bad as the Government.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be pleased about that, because it is the one council that is worse than Derbyshire county council.
Mr. David Faber: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under previous Conservative-controlled administrations Wiltshire county council traditionally funded the Wiltshire police force well above the level of Government support? Therefore, will he confirm that his statement today means that, as long as the present hung county council continues to fund well up to the level of need in Wiltshire and even above it, there need be no cuts in local government support for the police force in Wiltshire this year?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be going into details on that, but I am sure that he would agree that that is true.
Mr. Stephen Timms: The Secretary of State will be aware of two particular problems with the SSA formula as it affects the London borough of Newham which have already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). They are that the assumed outstanding debt figure within the capital financing element is a poor proxy for actual debt and that, in the past, the cost of meeting the statutory duties of local authorities with regard to the homeless has barely figured at all in the SSA formula. To what extent has one or both of those issues been addressed in the revisions to the formula this year?
Mr. Gummer: The latter point appears in the housing programme figures. There is always an argument about how the SSA should be made up depending upon which local authority group is pressing its point. I think that we have the balance right, but I am always prepared to reconsider.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is impossible to take into account actual debt, or one would reward those authorities which had borrowed without any concern for the future, not those that had been sensible. That would be an intolerable position. How would decent authorities feel if the kind of borrowing arrangements that some local authorities have gone into, and would still be going into if they had not been stopped by law, were rewarded? That could not possibly be done.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that on recent visits to the London borough of Newham and for many years I have shown a particular interest in the special

1347
problems of Newham and I hope that he will find that the changes that have been made here will not be disadvantageous.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect of lower than anticipated inflation will be that many authorities will have over-provided for additional costs in the current year which will be incorporated into their balances carried forward to help them next year and that many of them will be able to effect a budget reduction by virtue of that lower inflation?
Mr. Gummer: Of course that must be so. If there had been higher inflation, they would have had to spend and find more money. They have not had to find that money. It is there and it can be applied in ways that they had not expected. It is also true that those authorities that have had a better performance in the collection of council tax—there are many—will have more money to spend as a result. I hope that efficiency therefore benefits the taxpayer.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in cash terms, the grant to be distributed to local authorities next year will be 0.4 per cent. less than this year, and that he is applying the toughest capping criteria ever? Will he confirm also that residents of Nottinghamshire and throughout the country will face a double whammy—cuts in services but the privilege of paying more for them?
Mr. Gummer: They will face that only in those parts of Nottinghamshire where councils are not effective enough to make up, by better efficiency, that which they do not receive from the centre. If Nottinghamshire county council had not spent so much money on campaigning for its own continuation, but had behaved itself rather better over its spending, it might have more money in the kitty to help.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of community care funding that he announced is sufficiently generous that every local authority should be able to fund community care for all who need it? Does he agree that where authorities claim that they are unable to fund community care sufficiently this year, the problem is not underfunding but mismanagement of their social services budgets?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. We are providing significant extra sums for community care. Although local authorities were surprised by the generosity of the amounts, they used the opportunity to blame the Government for their own inefficiency. That is the long-standing view of the sort of local authority that takes no responsibility for its own actions but blames everybody else.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is nice to raise hopes that more money will be spent on education, which would be most welcome in my constituency—particularly in Tameside and Stockport, which must spend less on primary education than most other local authorities. However, most people will be disappointed that only pious words have come from the Secretary of State, not extra money. Does he agree that the only way in which local authorities can spend more
1348
on education is to cut other services? Does he not realise that local government is often the only employer in some deprived parts of the country, in terms of school meal and home help provision? People will be resentful if such services must be cut to improve education.
Mr. Gummer: That is precisely why, in a tough settlement, we have ensured that there is more money and a greater proportion for education, and why we have a system that is increasingly accurate in making certain that money goes to the neediest places. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pressing his local authority to ensure that important front-line services are protected. That will be done by greater efficiency, more sharing with the private sector and ensuring that money that does not need to be spent will not be spent in less important areas.
Mr. John Marshall: How much money do local authorities have in balances directly, and how much indirectly through local managemenit of schools? Could not that money be used to improve local authority services, instead of being squirrelled away? What does my right hon. Friend propose in respect of capping the London borough of Barnet's SSA?
Mr. Gummer: Detailed arrangements will have to wait until we have discussed the matter with local authorities, both as a matter of courtesy and to ensure accuracy. As to the generality, a considerable amount of money is held in balances by schools and local authorities. I do not say that there should be no balances, because some are necessary. However, it is obviously sensible for local authorities to review their balances, to ascertain whether they should be spent in these circumstances. I have no doubt that they will do so. Unfortunately, some local authorities find it better to remove their balances from the public gaze.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has failed to cover the cost of the police negotiating body agreement and that police budgets will be stretched even further after the settlement?
Mr. Gummer: That is not true.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend send a clear message to local education authorities that increased resources should be directed at improving classroom provision, not soaked up by a top-heavy bureaucracy? Should not all local education authorities scrutinise their administration costs, particularly in the light of the increasing number of schools choosing grant-maintained status?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and he now has the support of the Leader of the Opposition, who has clearly chosen grant-maintained schools because they spend their money on what matters and do not have to carry the extra costs of over-weighty administration.
Mr. Harry Barnes: How will the new formula on police affect the position in Derbyshire? One of the problems that Derbyshire faced was that, because it had adopted a policy of civilianisation—a policy now recommended by the Home Office—and thus had a smaller establishment, it did not receive the grants based on the old formula. Will that be

1349
taken into account? Will it be given any money back to compensate for the money that was lost through the fiddled formula that the Government operated?
Mr. Gummer: The long-standing anti-police attitudes of Derbyshire county council meant that it underspent on the police year after year. It will no longer be able to do that. An extra 5 per cent. is available for Derbyshire this year. The politicisation of the police by those who do not want to support the forces of law and order will now be overturned by this much better and independent method of funding.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less a body than the Police Federation has just issued a statement warmly welcoming the settlement for the police? Will he confirm that the change in funding formula for the police will be warmly welcomed by the people of Gloucestershire, because it will become more transparent how much is being spent, for example, on the excellently run constabulary in Gloucestershire? I thank him very much for listening to the representations that I and my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Gloucestershire have made so that we get a reasonable settlement of around 3 per cent. this year for the police in Gloucestershire.
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased that the Police Federation has announced that. It stands in stark contrast to the Labour party, which clearly cannot welcome anything that is ever given to the police, because it does not make it a priority. The Labour party does not believe that law and order comes first.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Last year, Cheshire county council made cuts in front-line services. The figures show that, this year, it will have to make further cuts. Will the Minister tell us who is right—the Government or the Tory-Liberal alliance in Cheshire county council? Is the definition of sufficient resources those resources that result in charging for mental health day care centres?
Mr. Gummer: The SSAs are worked out in consultation with the local government organisations. It is never possible to get all of them to agree on every one, because each has a different set of priorities, but we seek to do it as closely as we can. That is the basis on which need is assessed. Like other county councils, Cheshire county council has found significant money to promote its own case for continuation. Perhaps it will be able to find even more money to deal with the specific problems about which the hon. Gentleman speaks.
Mr. Tony Banks: Part of the additional money that local authorities receive in the year comes, in London's case, from the sale of assets by the London Residuary Body. It is then distributed to the London boroughs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, in the LRB's most recent accounts, the £10 million of deferred capital relates to the sale of county hall and is money owed by Shiriyama to the LRB? If that
1350
is so, when does the Secretary of State expect that the LRB will receive that money? When will it be distributed to the London boroughs?
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to look at that particular matter, but I doubt whether it is has anything specifically to do with my statement today.
Mr. Dobson: I have two brief points. Before the Secretary of State attempts, as I predicted, to blame everything that is wrong in local government on the Labour party, perhaps he and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who made his point and has now gone, should bear in mind the fact that the Tory councillor for Bromsgrove, Rita Taylor, said this morning, while speaking on behalf of the Association of District Councils:
"The public are going to have to pay more … Conservatives in local government are in despair at this settlement."
Like every other Member on the Opposition Benches, I perfectly well understand that the capital available, or not, to councils for building houses is not covered by the settlement. But it does nevertheless have revenue effects, because if councils are not allowed to build houses, more people become homeless. Councils have the obligation to rehouse homeless people. Instead of the sensible solution—putting people into new houses that they have built for them—they are forced to put them into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or rent from the private sector at exorbitant rents.
We all know that it would be cheaper, more humane, more sensible and more practical if councils were allowed to build houses and put people in them instead of having to dump them all around London and other big cities in privately rented accommodation or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I should have thought that, as a self-proclaimed expert on local government finance, the right hon. Gentleman would have known that capital expenditure, or non-expenditure, has an impact on the revenue demands on local authorities.
Mr. Gummer: There is an impact only if one adheres to the view that the only houses worth counting as houses are local authority houses. The coming of the housing associations means that there are many nominations to those associations which local authorities have and use.
That is one of the reasons why the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen steadily over the past few years: the fall is due to the Government's actions. It is one of the reasons why the number of people sleeping rough in the centre of London is now at an all-time low, according to figures provided by the charities concerned. It is also one of the reasons why Conservative Members believe that the hon. Gentleman has not read a figure or a fact for the past seven years: he is still quoting figures that are hangovers from a period of Labour government.

Business of the House
4.35 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please announce the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the business for next week, which is as follows:
MONDAY 5 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 6 DECEMBER—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 7 DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
THURSDAY 8 DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
FRIDAY 9 DECEMBER—Debate on standards in education on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 12 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Health Authorities Bill.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 7 December, as follows:
European Standing Committee A: European Community Document No. 11496/93 relating to a European vessel reporting system in Community waters; European Community Document No. 5841/94 relating to ship safety and control of pollution; European Community Document No. 6655/94 relating to training for maritime occupations; and European Community Document No. 7919/94 relating to a European vessel reporting system.
European Standing Committee B: European Community Document No. 9400/92 relating to personal data protection.
[Wednesday 7 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 11496/93, Reporting System for Vessels in Community Waters; (b) 5841/94, Ship Safety and the Control of Pollution; (c) 6655/94, Training for Maritime Occupations; (d) 7919/94, Reporting System for Vessels in Community Waters. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 48-x and HC 48-xxii (1993-94); (b) HC 48-xvii and HC 48-xxii (1993-94); (c) HC 48-xxii (1993-94); (d) HC 48-xxvi (1993-94).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9400/92, Personal Data and Information Security; Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-x (1992-93) HC 48-xxiv (1993-94) and HC 70-i (1994-95).]
Mrs. Taylor: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will consider a vote on VAT on Tuesday to be a vote of confidence in them? Will he also give us an idea of the Government's intentions with regard to the new position that has arisen following the loss of their majority in the House?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when similar circumstances arose in April 1976, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Thatcher, tabled early-day motion 351, demanding that the Committee of Selection appoint Members to Standing Committees in equal numbers from
1352
Government and Opposition parties? Does he intend to move a motion in line with that approved by the House on 7 May 1976? That motion stated that
"only an overall majority in the composition of the House should guarantee a majority in each Standing Committee".—[Official Report, 7 May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 1738.]
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear the position regarding any vote that might take place on Tuesday in relation to the matter to which the hon. Lady adverted. As for the second part of her question, the position is not on a par with that in 1976, which arose from changes in the composition of the House. These matters are for the Committee of Selection, and it is not for me to comment on or interfere in its business; let me point out, however, that the Standing Order governing the Committee's activities enjoins it to have regard to the composition of the House. It may have escaped the hon. Lady's attention that the composition of the House is exactly the same this Thursday as it was last Thursday.
Sir David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend expect that there will be a statement from the Government about the Child Support Agency before the Christmas recess, particularly as the Select Committee on Social Security has produced another important report? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sooner we end what the Select Committee called the "chronic maladministration" of the CSA, the easier our constituency advice bureaux will be?
Mr. Newton: I am obviously conscious of my hon. Friend's concern about those matters, not least because he seizes every opportunity, whether formally or informally, to make that clear to me. My hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee report; I need hardly assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is studying that report with great care, with a view to forming conclusions.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Leader of the House tell us why there is no provision in the business next week for a debate on Bosnia, not least because it appears that the Foreign Secretary is to go to Belgrade this weekend as part of a team which may, by its negotiations, give undue reward to Serbian aggression?
Does the Leader of the House appreciate that many of us were extremely disappointed that the Government were unable to make a statement about Bosnia this week, particularly after the visit of Senator Dole, and that that disappointment might be alleviated if a debate were held in early course?
Mr. Newton: I understand and respect the reasons why the hon. and learned Gentleman raised that point. He has almost given the answer by referring to what will be quite an intensive further round of diplomatic activity over the next few days. I cannot undertake that that will necessarily give rise to a statement, but I know that my right hon. Friends will give careful consideration to when they should appropriately report to the House.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for an early debate on the progress of community care? Is he aware that 18 Liberal and Labour-controlled authorities appear to have lost control of their community care budgets, despite very generous funding, and are now cutting vital

1353
services for the elderly and infirm, even though they have reserves in the kitty due to lower inflation and the success of our economic policy?
Mr. Newton: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. I took the opportunity to discuss some of those matters in my constituency, which adjoins that of my hon. Friend, when I was on a relevant visit just under a week ago. I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks will be taken into account by all those concerned with those matters.
Mr. Tony Banks: Given the amount of time that we seem to have on our hands, and in order to keep us off the streets, could we have a debate next week or some time soon on the conference at Fort Lauderdale of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES? Many things were said about rhino, elephants, vicuna, whales and mahogany. We should have a debate or a statement about that, so will the Leader of the House please arrange that as early as possible? While he is on his feet, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we are to have a Christmas recess and when it is likely to be?
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, there is some tension between the implications of the second half of a question and the plain request of the first half. I do not in any way minimise the importance of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate unless he wishes to sit on Christmas eve.
I can help the hon. Gentleman with the second part of his question. I said last week that I hoped that the House would be off on Christmas day. I can go a little further today and say that I hope that Christmas eve and Boxing day might be included, but I cannot go beyond that.
Mr. Roger Knapman: May we have an early debate on the subject of far eastern countries, bearing in mind the fact that last night's Budget response by the shadow Chancellor—or should it be a party political broadcast?—suggested that Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan have faster-growing economies than our own? Would that enable us to express a view about whether the success of those countries is due largely to socialism or capitalism?
Mr. Newton: That is an interesting point about a broadcast that I have not had the opportunity or privilege of observing. I thought that lurking in my hon. Friend's question there might be an implication of a sort that I might be less willing to accept, but, taken at face value, it was interesting.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a full debate on the inadequacies of the cold weather payments system? It is evident that vulnerable people should automatically receive extra money for heating. Is he aware that in my constituency the readings to trigger off the cold weather payments are taken miles away, yet many of my constituents live well above the snow line where it is much colder, so the readings are false? There are many inadequacies in the cold weather payments system. Given the growing
1354
number of deaths from hypothermia, the growing number of cold-related illnesses and the cost to the NHS, is it not time that the House discussed the issue properly?
Mr. Newton: I should be more willing to respond in the way that the hon. Lady wishes if she had at least acknowledged the extent to which over quite a long period the system of help with cold weather payments has been improved substantially in its administration and automaticity and, most recently, in its amount, with a further increase announced in the Budget only this week. I should also have been more willing to respond in the way that the hon. Lady wishes if she had acknowledged the extent to which all that has changed from a time when a Labour Government did virtually nothing about it.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Following what was said by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to have a debate next week comparing the compensation packages that people will receive now because of the introduction of VAT on fuel with what happened in 1974–79 when electricity prices were soaring through the roof thanks to hyper-inflation and people received no compensation whatever? Where was the Labour party's care then?
Mr. Newton: That is a good point, and I must tell my hon. Friend that I have arranged a debate in which he might make that point. I do not know—although perhaps I ought to—whether he has yet taken part in that debate, but if not, it is called the Budget debate. There is still today and two more days to go.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can we have a statement about the number of hon. Members on each side of the House? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the Leader of the House said that the situation now is different from what happened in 1976 when the Labour Government lost their majority, albeit due to by-elections and John Stonehouse finishing up in Australia after leaving his clothes on the beach in Florida.
The truth is that the Government have lost their majority because they kicked nine people out of their own party. In my view, the Government should be penalised for having the arrogance and audacity to take the Whip away from nine of their people and then the cheek to tell the nation that the situation will remain the same. If they had any guts and decency, they would remove themselves from that position. If they really wanted to be decent to the British people, they would get out and call a general election.
Mr. Newton: It appears that the hon. Gentleman is advancing a somewhat novel constitutional doctrine. When I replied to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I said that there had been no change in the composition of the House since this time last week. There is a clear majority of Members elected as Conservatives, and the composition of the House is determined by the electorate.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the fact that there is hardly anything more unpopular at the moment than putting the full rate of VAT on domestic fuel, would it not be proper for the House to reflect that

1355
feeling, by at least having a free vote on that issue next week? Would not that be far more appropriate than using threats and intimidation against Tory Back Benchers who may well have the courage to reflect the feelings of their constituents, or are they to lose the Whip as well?
Mr. Newton: I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the position for next week and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made clear on Tuesday the Government's policy on budgetary matters as a whole, including this one.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the British Waterways-opposed private Bill completed its Committee stage in the spillover period in October after intense scrutiny in both Houses over almost three years. Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to list the Third Reading of that Bill so that we can be fair to the promoters and, we hope, get it on to the statute book?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point, although I cannot give any commitments at this stage.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Monday's business in Edinburgh, will the Leader of the House persuade the Lord Advocate to offer a statement in view of the Lord Advocate's deeply unsatisfactory response to Alan Francovich's film and his even more deeply unsatisfactory response on Monday to the representatives of the Lockerbie relatives? After all, it was the biggest crime of murder against western civilians since 1945. Will the Lord Advocate at least offer some sort of statement?
Will the Leader of the House comment on a letter sent to me by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which said that, apparently, the Lord Advocate cannot answer Adjournment debates? Furthermore, it solemnly gave the lack of seating arrangements for the Lord Advocate as a reason why it was difficult. Will the Leader of House inject some common sense into the position?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has advanced his arguments in a characteristically courteous way. I have three points to put. First, he will accept, if he has read the Secretary of State's letter—of which I have obtained a copy, as you, Madam Speaker, would say, for the sake of greater accuracy—that the seating arrangements are not presented as an argument. Secondly, the position on Ministers who were not members of the Committee taking part in Adjournment debates was made clear in the documentation provided before the Standing Order debate earlier in the year. Thirdly—the most important point—as the Secretary of State's letter says, it is open to the Lord Advocate to volunteer a statement if the usual channels agree that it is appropriate, as they do for statements on the Floor of the House. I take the hon. Gentleman's points as a request for the matter to be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State through the usual channels.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I say, Madam Speaker, how much I hope that you will repeat your inspiration of a year ago and arrange for a Christmas tree in New Palace yard?
Madam Speaker: It will go up tomorrow.
Mr. Greenway: That will be very nice.
Madam Speaker: Does that answer the question?
Mr. Greenway: It does not, but thank you very much.
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House draw the motion for the debate on standards in education on Friday next week widely enough to encompass the important principle of choice of school? That would allow my constituents—who like to choose between the eight grant-maintained schools available to them, and who know that those schools are seriously discriminated against in terms of resources and, particularly, in terms of special educational needs, by Ealing's Labour council and the Labour party, which would like to eliminate grant-maintained schools—to take account of the wish of one or two socialists, including the Leader of the Opposition, to send their children to those schools.
Mr. Newton: On the second point, I said that the debate next Friday will take place on a motion for the Adjournment, so it could hardly be more widely drawn. I should have thought that my hon. Friend's points would, subject to you, Madam Speaker, fall within the terms of the debate. On his first point, I express my gratitude to him and to you, Madam Speaker, for ensuring that you, and not I, will be the person responsible for Christmas trees.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Hon. members have many opportunities to discuss uprated benefits, but when will it be in order for us to discuss the 30 social security benefits and allowances that have never been increased since their introduction? The widow's payment, which was first announced in 1985, is particularly unfair. It replaced the widow's allowance, which was uprated every year. The widow's payment should be £1,600 next year, but it is frozen at £1,000. Is it not particularly mean of the Government not to allow increases in the payment, which is made to widows during the difficult time of bereavement?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made a substantial uprating statement only yesterday. With his experience in this subject, the hon. Gentleman knows well that an extensive series of orders follow an uprating statement to implement the uprating. That should provide him with an opportunity to make his points, if he wishes.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House make further inquiries into the question of majorities in Committees? Does he accept that Lady Thatcher tabled her motion, not as a result of a death or resignation by an hon. Member, but because of John Stonehouse's decision to leave the Labour Whip and to join the Whip of, I think, the English National party? That is an exact parallel of what happened last week. There was a change, not in composition, but in the allegiance of

1357
hon. Members. Is it not important that the Government demonstrate that they are consistent rather than merely opportunistic?
Mr. Newton: Compared with other Labour Members, the hon. Gentleman has at least accepted the basic thrust of the point made earlier and he has implicitly accepted what I said about the composition of the House. On his second point, I do not think that he has a parallel on that front either.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I refer the Leader of the House to the reply in column 710 of yesterday's Hansard to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on the proposed extension of article III of the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic matters? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government intend to ratify that extension under the Ponsonby rule and that, unless an objection is raised in the House, the extension will saddle the British public with a bill of some £20 billion, covering the servicing, maintenance, operation and decommissioning costs of the Trident programme? Does he therefore accept that some hon. Members object to that going through and will call for a debate to be held within the next parliamentary week to discuss whether the extension should be agreed?
Mr. Newton: The right course is for me to say that I shall consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall, of course, bring it to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.

BILL PRESENTED
  JOBSEEKERS
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. William Hague, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Roger Evans and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, presented a Bill to provide for a jobseekers allowance and to make other provision to promote the employment of the unemployed and the assistance of persons without a settled way of life: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming debate on Question [29 November].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

  Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Madam Speaker: I have to limit speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 o'clock this evening to 10 minutes for each hon. Member.
4.56 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I believed that the best way to create prosperity and jobs was for the Government to control their spending, borrowing and inflation, but times change and I am now Secretary of State for Employment. From my new perspective, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to create jobs is for the Government to control spending, borrowing and inflation because those are the only conditions for sustainable, economic growth.
Interestingly, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) believes that the only way to create jobs is for the Government to spend, to tax, to borrow and to inflate. In her previous job, her opinion was that the only way was to spend, to tax, to borrow and to inflate. The funny thing is that that was when she was shadow Chief Secretary. There is an inevitable symmetry between any object and its shadow.
I am delighted today to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget. It underlines the Government's absolute commitment to the fight against inflation. It ensures that the constraints on public spending are maintained and it charts the route to reduce the public spending borrowing requirement to zero before the end of the century. It is the reliability of those policies that gives Britain the prospect of a sustained recovery. We have created the framework within which prosperity and wealth are being generated by business and it is that framework that is attracting foreign investment to this country. It is by those means that jobs are created.

1359
The Government believe in making it easy for one person to provide a job for another. We avoid imposing unnecessary regulations and restrictions. We do not deter employers from taking on extra people as their businesses grow. The Government do not believe in imposing on businesses in Britain costs that competitor firms elsewhere in the world do not have to carry. Costs must be contained if our firms are to compete, because the newly emerging tiger economies of Asia and south America increasingly have well educated and well trained work forces as well as a much lower cost structure.
However, the Government believe in helping those who would otherwise stand the least chance of getting a job, such as disabled people and people who have been unemployed for a long time. We must ensure that no one is denied the chance of getting a job simply because of prejudice among employers.
During the 1980s, the Government transformed Britain's employment laws. We brought the trade unions within the rule of law, we cut Labour's taxes on jobs and we swept away the unnecessary restrictions that made businesses unwilling to offer people jobs. As a result, Britain today has a flexible labour market, which means that, when the economy grows, unemployment falls quickly.
Within a few months of the recovery starting, unemployment began to fall. That is in contrast with the much longer time taken during the last recovery, when it was a full five years before the fall began. In this recovery there has already been a reduction of 450,000 in the number of people out of work, so that the total today is just above 2.5 million.
Recovery has reached other countries in Europe, too, but in most of those countries unemployment is steady or still rising. In Britain, it is falling because of the supply side reforms implemented by the Government, and consistently opposed by the Labour party, which has opposed everything that could give our people a better chance of work.
We recognised the need to give young people a better start in life, better education and better training. We did not think it good enough to have just 7,000 youngsters in training. But Labour did, because that was the number in 1979. We have increased that number to 277,000. We did not think it right to let young people start out on a life on benefit at the age of 16. But Labour did. We thought it necessary to improve educational achievement, so we introduced the national curriculum, testing and league tables in schools. Labour opposed us every inch of the way.
In 1979, Labour thought it good enough that fewer than 25 per cent. of our young people got five good GCSEs or the equivalent. We did not agree, so now the figure is 40 per cent. The proportion of young people getting A-levels has just about doubled, and Britain now produces, proportionately, more graduates than any other country in Europe.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: If the Secretary of State thinks that education and training are so important, why has he cut the training for work programme by £200 million?
Mr. Portillo: I shall deal with that later in my speech, but I will give the hon. Lady a preview now. I am interested not in what we spend but in the results we get.
1360
I want to get people into jobs, and I measure Government programmes by what they do for people, not by how much they cost taxpayers. It is indicative of the mentality of the hon. Lady and her colleagues that all that they are interested in is what is spent, not what help is provided for people.
We have introduced modern apprenticeships. In the White Paper on competitiveness we set out a programme amounting to £325 million of investment in people, to boost training in small firms and to make our vocational qualifications rigorous and up to date, and to provide better careers education and guidance and at least one week's work experience for all young people before they leave full-time education.
We have started accelerated modern apprenticeships for 18 and 19-year-olds so that they can achieve the technical and supervisory skills crucial to Britain's economic success.
In the modern flexible labour market we also need to encourage individuals to take responsibility for managing their own training and development. To help individuals to make informed choices, I am making arrangements with the training and enterprise councils so that they can spend up to £40 million over two years on pump-priming adult information and guidance services.
It is business that knows what business needs. Most training must be conducted by business; and it is—business spends £20 billion a year. But even in areas where the Government need to contribute taxpayers' money, business still knows best how that money should be spent. That is why the TECs are run by business people.
Increasingly, the TEC budgets are being detennined by outputs—by what is achieved—rather than by what is spent. The output that matters to most people on most of our programmes is that they actually get a job. Only about one third of the participants in the training for work programme get a job at present, even after some months' training. We can do better than that. We shall increase the proportion of people on that programme getting jobs to 50 per cent. That means that we can increase the numbers going into jobs but spend less on the programme.
The Labour party may portray that as a cut, but Conservatives recognise it as better value for money, better value for my Department and for taxpayers, and better for trainees, too. I want to deliver more jobs for less money. So should the Labour party, if it were not trapped in the spend, spend, spend mentality so well exemplified by its Front-Bench spokesmen. None the less, we have committed ourselves to modern apprenticeships and a range of other programmes under the competitiveness White Paper, which, as I have already said, amount to about £325 million.
Our spending next year on training, education and enterprise will be almost £2.2 billion, as it is this year. That is twice as much in real terms as what was spent under the Labour Government. Most significantly, the number of opportunities in the coming year will be 1.5 million, the same as this year.
The most effective opportunities for unemployed people are often not training but other help in getting them into jobs. There will be more money for those other programmes, such as 1-2-1, workwise, workstart, work trial, job match and jobfinders grants. There will also be new money for Community Action. For people on the

1361
longer programmes, we shall switch some of the money so as to enable them to search more effectively for a job while still members of programmes.
The Budget continues to reduce the costs of employing people. It makes further changes to family credit to help people to return to work, and builds on the various successful pilot programmes that we have run over the past two years.
The Budget also focuses on the problems that people who have been unemployed for a long time face when they are offered a job. They often fear that they will be worse off in work, either permanently or at least for a while, so we have decided to give them the same help with rent and council tax for their first four weeks in a job, and to speed up the payment of housing benefit and family credit so that they can get quickly the benefits due to them when they are in work.
As a national programme, we shall also provide grants for people who have been unemployed for more than two years if they need help with work expenses such as clothes or tools.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State says that the payment of housing benefit will be speeded up. As housing benefit is paid by local authorities, how can he guarantee that that will be done?
Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will make arrangements with the local authorities to ensure that that can be accomplished. That will mean some changes in procedures.
We also want to encourage employers to take on those who have been out of work for a long time. We recognise that people who have been out of work for a long time undoubtedly face prejudice. We shall give them a chance to improve themselves. After April 1996, employers who take on a person who has been unemployed for more than two years will enjoy a 12-month national insurance contribution holiday. That will cut the average cost of employing such a person by more than £300. That provides a real incentive.
Ms Angela Eagle: Everyone in the House shares the concern about the long-term unemployed. I feel that the Government have allowed long-term unemployment to go too high for too long. If the Secretary of State has suddenly acquired a concern for the long-term unemployed, will he explain to the House why none of the schemes will start until April 1996?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady is misinformed. I should say, incidentally, that if she has any concern for the long-term unemployed I hope that she feels a deep sense of shame at being a member of the party which imposed the national insurance surcharge, thus destroying millions of jobs in Britain. The hon. Lady is wrong. I have told her about the jobfinders grant, jobmatch, workstart and work trials. All those programmes will begin within that period. The hon. Lady refers to only one scheme—the national insurance contributions holiday. That will come in with the job seeker's allowance. It will be part of the Bill. It will be introduced in a timely way in April 1996.
1362
We understand that employers may need to be convinced that people who have been unemployed for a long time can work properly. We are giving them the incentive to try people who have been unemployed for more than six months in a job at no cost to employers. Such a three-week trial gives employees the opportunity to prove themselves in a job of work. In the pilot programmes that we have run, six out of 10 people in work trials have been kept on in jobs.
We must also improve the motivation and self-confidence of people who have been out of work for a long time, especially the young. People aged under 25 who have been out of work for more than a year will be offered interviews and short courses. In the pilot programmes that we have run, the interviews and courses have produced good results. They help young people to improve their employability. For that reason, they will be made compulsory.
We must ensure that people with disabilities and illnesses who are capable of work have a good opportunity of getting a job, and we shall protect their opportunities under the training for work programme. We recognise that when we introduce incapacity benefit some people will switch from benefit and become jobseekers again. We will give them special help to find work.
I am delighted that some of the ideas that I have talked about have found their way into Labour party policy or, should I say more exactly, into the report of the Social Justice Commission. The House will recognise that the Social Justice Commission does not represent Labour policy. Labour accepts the kudos for anything that is suggested in the commission's report, but refuses to say how those ideas would be paid for.
None the less, the Social Justice Commission has looked at our pilot schemes and what we have done with national insurance contributions and adopted our ideas. For example, it suggested that there should be work trials for employers with long-term unemployed people. It forgot to say that we already had such work trials up and running as a pilot scheme. We welcome the conversion of the Labour party, but I hope that it will now take the next logical step.
If it is true that employers can be encouraged to take on extra staff by reducing employment costs such as national insurance contributions, they would obviously also be deterred from taking on extra people if we added to their costs by introducing a training levy, a national minimum wage or the social chapter. One cannot admit that reducing NICs helps create jobs and then pretend that adding costs does not destroy jobs.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The Secretary of State is a doughty opponent of a statutory minimum wage. Is he aware that one country which has boasted record employment creation in the past 20 years—the United States of America—has a statutory minimum wage, variable from state to state, and that the states with the highest statutory minimum wage have some of the best job creation records? If the Secretary of State is so proud about the Social Justice Commission taking up ideas that he says are Government policy, does he accept that almost every measure that he has just mentioned has been put

1363
into practice in France since the late 1980s? As leader of the Tory party's Europhobe wing in the Cabinet, is he not ashamed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point, and not speeches. I make it clear before we go further that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and that interventions must be brief or I shall intervene in them.
Mr. Portillo: I had the honour of meeting my French colleague the other day. I found him in a slightly depressed state because unemployment in France was still rising despite—or rather, because of—many years of socialist presidency. The reference to the United States is interesting. For a decade, it failed to uprate its minimum wages, and the current Secretary of State, Secretary Reich, has recognised that raising the minimum wage could have adverse consequences for employment. So most of us are in agreement around the world, but as usual the Labour party is not.
Excessive employment costs of any sort destroy jobs. That is why we must keep our costs down. It does not mean that we must have low wages. Indeed, the opposite is true. If we keep down the non-wage costs we can be more competitive. That means that businesses will prosper, productivity will improve and wages will rise. That has already happened.
In the past 15 years, take-home pay for a married couple with one worker on male average earnings has risen by 46 per cent. more than inflation. By contrast, between 1973 and 1979, take-home pay for the same couple fell by 2 per cent. after taking into account inflation.
Mr. Doug Henderson: How does the Secretary of State think that market forces will lift the real wages of people such as laundry workers and contract cleaners in the private sector in Britain?
Mr. Portillo: The massive programme that I have described to improve educational standards, which the hon. Gentleman's party has opposed, and to create youth training opportunities will raise the value of what people can offer.
Mr. Henderson: I am talking about ordinary workers.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman talks about ordinary workers. He has the patronising attitude that ordinary workers cannot be upskilled or enabled to achieve more. That is a typical patronising socialist attitude—the idea that people can be levelled down and that they cannot be achievers. We believe that they can; we want to raise the skills level in Britain so that people can make a higher contribution and earn a higher wage.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is it not a bit rich to hear all this advice about youth unemployment from the Labour party when it advocates the very policies practised elsewhere in Europe which have resulted in significantly higher youth unemployment there?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will know that in Spain, tragically, youth unemployment is three times as high as in Britain. That is in a country with a minimum wage. Returning to Britain, pay here is now as high as almost anywhere in Europe. Take-home pay for a manufacturing
1364
worker in Britain in 1993 was higher than in Italy and France and pretty much the same as in Germany. That is because Britain's economic performance has been transformed. We have set out on the road to sustained prosperity. We are creating a high-productivity, high-wage, high-tech, highly competitive economy.
Ms Abbott: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Portillo: I give way to the hon. Lady, who recently described me as a fellow immigrant on the make.
Ms Abbott: My gratitude to a fellow immigrant is undying. Does not the average figure for take-home pay conceal the fact that the vast majority of net new jobs created by the Government are part-time, low-wage jobs?
Mr. Portillo: No. This economy is creating every sort of job—full-time jobs, jobs with overtime, and part-time jobs. The hon. Lady's intervention is odd, for her. I do not know much about it, but I take it that the hon. Lady is a feminist. Recently, we have witnessed a tremendous return of women to work—women who are able to work at the same time as fulfilling their family responsibilities and who are looking for part-time work—and we have an economy that is flexible enough to respond to that sort of demand. I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady laying about her and denigrating part-time work, when that is what so many women need and want.
The economic revival that I have just described would be ruined by the social chapter. The Prime Minister refused to sign up to it at Maastricht because it gave the Community significant new powers to legislate on employment and social matters, mostly on the basis of qualified majority voting.
The social chapter would lay the United Kingdom open to new and damaging Community-level interference. It would threaten the Government's achievements in restoring a fair balance in industrial relations and freeing up the labour market. It would jeopardise existing jobs and inhibit the creation of new ones. Authoritative commentators, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have repeatedly pointed out that the European Community needs fewer regulations and not more, if it is ever to match the job creation performance of our competitors.
The Community can deal with its unemployment problems, but only by deregulating its labour markets and cutting employment costs. That was recognised by a gentleman who will be well known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Herr Gunther Rexrodt, the German Economics Minister. He said that Britain's achievements in deregulation, privatisation and reducing the burdens on business are "outstanding" and that Britain has
"achieved exceptional results in breaking down bureaucratic obstacles to starting up new businesses".
I thank Herr Rexrodt for that generous compliment.
Unfortunately, the Labour party is rather less objective: its beguiling, but dishonest, argument is that, instead of paying money to the unemployed we should spend it paying them to work. Obviously, that idea is superficially attractive, but it does not work. It cannot create real jobs. If there were such a simple socialist answer, France and Spain would have full employment today; instead, their unemployment figures are far higher than ours.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no Labour Government have ever left office

1365
with a smaller number of unemployed people than when they came to office? Would he not be more inclined to take advice from the Opposition if there were such an Administration, or is that most unlikely?
Mr. Portillo: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. There never will be such an Administration. Were there to be, I imagine—I know something of the Opposition's so-called policies—that they would again drive up unemployment because such policies have always done so when applied elsewhere in the world.
The idea of spending one's way out of unemployment has always attracted the Labour party. At Employment Question Time on Tuesday, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) urged us to allow local authorities to push up the level of public borrowing. During the Budget statement, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor reached that excellent passage in his speech in which he looked forward to very much reduced levels of public spending borrowing requirement in future years, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) immediately said,"We will soon get those up."
Mr. Stephen Byers: It would be informative if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some of his personal views on these matters. Does he agree that taxpayers' money should be given to employers to take people off the register of long-term unemployed?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is a shade too quick, as that is in the next paragraph or two.
Mr. Byers: Answer now.
Mr. Portillo: In the next paragraph or two—that is not long to wait.
If it were so easy, why did unemployment double when Labour was in power? It was because, as at least the left-wing Members of the Labour party admit—I pay tribute to their honesty—higher public spending requires higher taxes or borrowing, higher interest rates and probably higher inflation, all of which destroy jobs. New public sector jobs would be created at the expense of jobs lost in the private sector. As the private sector tends to be more efficient, high productivity jobs would be replaced by lower productivity jobs. Indeed, that seems to be a central part of Labour economic policy.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—the deputy leader of the Labour party, no less—urged that public services be run inefficiently to create jobs. Such a policy would destroy jobs. The economy would suffer as the wealth-creating sector would bear the burden of public sector inefficiency and the economy would be less able to generate new jobs. The net effect is that unemployment would rise.
One cannot increase demand in the economy by increasing public spending. One can do so by providing the conditions for sustained economic recovery, which is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done.
Job subsidies can play a part in helping some people, such as those who have been out of work for a long time, to compete in the labour market, but that is not a cost-free option. Usually, one is paying employers to take on people when they could have taken on extra people anyway. One merely encourages them to take on
1366
subsidised workers in the place of the unsubsidised. Companies who get subsidised workers get an advantage over those who do not, which damages job prospects in competitor firms.
Let us be honest. One cannot spend one's way out of unemployment. Subsidies have to be paid for by someone else's taxes and, unless the economy is growing, subsidising one person's job is likely to lead to someone else having to wait longer to find work.
Mr. Jenkin: Is not the really important feature of this Government the fact that we have achieved the three-card trick in the social security uprating? We have reduced the overall burden of social security, continued to target help on those who most need it and had money available to help people back to work, to get rid of some of the poverty traps. All that the Social Justice Commission advocates is higher public expenditure, which would damage the economy in the long run.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I prefer to think of it as the triple crown rather than a three-card trick.
Despite the Opposition's dishonesty on that issue, they are ever-mindful of Conservative successes at general elections and like to pretend that their policies are similar to ours, but while we build the economic foundations for job creation, they are in the demolition business. Their job demolition policy number one is a minimum wage. Attempts to increase wages through legislation do not work. We know from those countries that have a national minimum wage what happens and we know that the young are the worst affected, as they are prevented from beginning work.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, being uncharacteristically coy at the time, admitted that a minimum wage would cause a "shakeout". In plain speaking that means job losses and jobs destroyed. For the victims, avoiding the hard words would not soften the blow.
A minimum wage would bring the Labour party's trade union friends scurrying out of the woodwork to tell us that pay differentials had to be restored. It would make the cost of employing people more expensive at every level. The better-paid would gain the most and the low-paid the least. As those pay rises would not be justified by higher output, jobs would be lost. Those who would suffer most would be those who were thrown out of work and, even more, those who are already out of work, with the lowest level of skills.
The minimum wage is a ban on job creation. It forbids companies to create jobs for those who would like to work and have something to contribute to a company, but not enough to justify being paid the minimum wage. Labour's espousal of that policy is deeply cynical. As the words of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East demonstrate, the Opposition know that it would destroy jobs. It is a sell-out to the unions—a despicable deal to boost the wages of those who have jobs by smashing the chances of those who do not.
Labour's job demolition policy number two is the social chapter, which Opposition Members try to pretend would not cost jobs. It has cost jobs in Germany. Black and Decker is closing its manufacturing unit at Limburg, and moving production to the United Kingdom. The hon.

1367
Member for Peckham ought to ask them why, but I shall save her the trouble. They moved because costs there were too high. In the words of one of the Limburg workers,
"industry is flexible … the social chapter is not".
Where have Black and Decker moved those jobs to? They have moved the jobs to Spennymoor, county Durham in the constituency of Sedgefield—the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition, who would sign up to the social chapter tomorrow if he were given the chance. Let the Labour party tell the people of Spennymoor—the extra 300 people who have a permanent job, the shopkeepers in whose shops the workers will spend their money and the house builders who will build homes for the workers—exactly how they would be better off with the social chapter and without jobs. Labour's rhetoric is full of promises about full employment, but the reality is that its policies destroy jobs—a cruel deception from a party more interested in appearing to care than in actually helping people.
Let us have honest answers from the hon. Member for Peckham in her new position. I will ask her five straight questions, but I am sure that I shall not get one straight answer. At what level would she set a minimum wage? How many jobs would be destroyed by the minimum wage that she would introduce? Would she include young people in a minimum wage? If so, we can look forward to 35 per cent. youth unemployment in this country. What would she do to reduce unemployment that the Government have not done? What does she mean by full employment—500,000 people unemployed, 1 million, 1.5 million? I suggest that the House should award points to the hon. Lady for her answers, and that we should mark her answers on the basis of three categories: candour, economic coherence and arithmetical accuracy.
Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be the judge?
Mr. Portillo: I shall certainly be on the panel.
The route to more jobs and fewer people out of work is clear: it consists of sound economic policies based on permanently low inflation, a deregulated and flexible labour market and help for those who need it most, such as young people and the long-term unemployed. Those policies are in place today, and they are working. Output is growing by about 4 per cent., inflation is steady at 2 per cent., unit wage costs are falling—enabling British business to compete in world markets—and exports are up by 10 per cent. We have achieved export-led growth. Britain's recovery is generating growth with jobs, in stark contrast to the jobless growth which has been a feature in Europe over the past three decades.
Britain has 70 per cent. people in work, one of the highest proportions in Europe and well above Germany, France and Italy. Across Europe, some Governments have chosen Labour's route of high spending, subsidies, adherence to the social chapter and a minimum wage. Those countries today have high unemployment. In Britain we have pursued educational improvements, sound public finances and targeting help at special groups, and our unemployment is falling. The Budget continues those consistent policies, and makes sustained growth possible and probable. I therefore look forward to a sustained fall in the number of our people out of work.
5.33 pm
Ms Harriet Harman: The Budget should have addressed the central employment issues that are facing this country. Some 2.5 million people are without work, and those who are in work feel insecure about falling living standards. It should have dealt with investment in skills and industry and with the lack of investment in the economic infrastructure, but it failed to do so.
The Government are out of touch and are failing to recognise and address the central concerns of employers and employees. They wonder why there is no "feel-good factor", but it is obvious to everyone else. People feel not good but fearful, insecure and worse off.
The true position was spelt out clearly two weeks ago and was in sharp contrast to the rosy picture painted by the Secretary of State for Employment. While the Government trumpet the recovery, people do not think that the recession has ended and they still fear unemployment. People still feel powerless and insecure about jobs, housing and the health service, and they have no vision of where the Tory party is heading. Tax increases mean that real take-home pay is falling.
Before the Secretary of State disagrees, and says that I am "talking Britain down", I must ask whether he agrees with the views that I have just expressed, because they are not my views but those of the Tory deputy chairman, John Maples, who was reporting the view of the British people—a view that the Secretary of State does not want to hear.
Cabinet Ministers say publicly—as the right hon. Gentleman has just done—that everything is rosy, but their own deputy chairman tells them privately that Labour has been right all along. It has been right about the fear of unemployment, about insecurity and about falling living standards.
Mr. Jenkin: Before the hon. Lady reminds me of my election address, as Opposition Front Bench Members usually do, I remind her that I stood on a platform of urging lower taxation, which, in due course, I am sure we will achieve. Does she agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who told the House recently that the recession has ended?
Ms Harman: We hope that the recession has ended, and there are signs that growth is picking up, but what we and the people of this country are concerned about is that yet another recession will be just around the corner as the Government pursue boom-and-bust policies.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would quote his election address. He well remembers that he promised his constituents that the Government would cut taxes, whereas in fact their taxes have gone up by the equivalent of 7p in the pound. Since this is a debate about employment and unemployment, I remind him that unemployment in his constituency has risen by 156 per cent. in the past five years. Those are the Government's own figures.
Mr. MacShane: If we are out of the recession, why does page 17 of the Red Book forecast lower growth and higher inflation for next year? Every other Finance

1369
Ministry in Europe is forecasting increased growth for 1995–1996, yet the Red Book says that our growth will decrease.
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right, and the Government's uncertainty about the future of the economy is evidenced by their need to put up interest rates. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) did not know about the increase in unemployment in his own constituency.
With the benefit of the Conservative party deputy chairman's insight, how have the Government responded? The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced what he describes as a "Budget for jobs". Unemployment is no longer to be "a price worth paying". How can anyone believe in the Government's determination to lead a crusade against unemployment when it is to be led by the Secretary of State for Employment? He does not believe in Government action to get unemployed people back to work, because he believes that everything should be left to the market. He made that quite clear when he said that any action by Government undermines personal responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman, more than anyone else, is the heir to the Thatcherite legacy. The Chancellor wants to bury Thatcherism, but the Employment Secretary continues to praise it. That is why this so-called Budget for jobs is a sham. How can it achieve its aim when the Employment Secretary does not even believe in the principle that the Government have a responsibility for the unemployed?
The Budget has been billed as the Budget for jobs, but it will cut the budget of the Department of Employment by 14 per cent. over the next three years. It has been boasted that the Budget will help unemployed people, but it will cut help with mortgage payments for people who become unemployed. The Budget purports to recognise the particular difficulties faced by those who have been unemployed for a long time, but, at the same time, the training budget for the unemployed will be cut.
If the Government were serious about tackling unemployment, they could take immediate action, because we have 350,000 unemployed building workers, 128,000 homeless families and many council houses in need of improvement. The £5 billion held in capital receipts lies idle, however, in local authority accounts. A Labour Budget would have phased in the release of those capital receipts so that local authorities could put building workers back to work to build houses for the homeless. Everyone recognises that that would be common sense—everyone except the Government.
Mr. Phil Gallie: If the Opposition pursued such a policy, Labour councils would have to increase their council tax rates. Surely that is typical of the Opposition, who are always talking about raising taxes.
Ms Harman: I am glad of that intervention, because I hope that the hon. Gentleman, at least, will stand by his constituents when we vote against the extension of VAT to fuel bills. I believe, however, that he missed the point about capital receipts, which are being held by councils as a result of the sale of council housing. That money
1370
could be used to put building workers back into work, but Tory dogma of the 1980s dictated that it was not the role of local or central Government to invest in housing.
Have the Government buried Thatcherism in their Budget for jobs? Far from it, because, instead of releasing capital receipts, they have cut 25 per cent. from the funds for investment in social housing and have imposed harsher rules for those on housing benefit.
The so-called Budget for jobs has two defining characteristics of the old Thatcherite dogma—the refusal to take action to put people back into work and benefit cuts, which make life even harder for the victims of the Government's failure.
Mr. Portillo: Is the hon. Lady aware that, if a council is debt-free, it is free to spend its receipts? Does she not realise that the reason why councils are not free to spend their receipts when they have debts is that the money is set aside and stands alongside their current debts? Such councils do not choose to pay off those debts directly because they get a higher rate of interest on the money in the bank, the original debts having been taken out years ago at a lower rate of interest. The hon. Lady must realise that, if councils are debt-free, they may spend the capital receipts, but, if not, what she proposes represents an increase in borrowing. That is why the Government think that she and her party are irresponsible.
Ms Harman: The problem for the Employment Secretary is that the Government recognised that it could be acceptable to allow councils to spend their capital receipts and they allowed councils to have an 18-month holiday to spend. If they accepted that principle, albeit for a short time, why were they not prepared to phase in the release of all capital receipts? The right hon. Gentleman's argument simply does not hold water in the light of the Government's previous decision, which they deemed acceptable, to allow councils to spend their receipts.
Although the Government's rhetoric on the long-term unemployed has changed, it is not matched by action. The Chancellor admitted that the Government had to intervene in order—I quote him approvingly—to
"encourage employers to look more favourably on people who have been out of work for some time"—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol.250, c.1090.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: long-term unemployment is a tragedy and a waste. It breaks up families, tears communities apart and holds our economy back.
Many employers are reluctant to take on people who have been out of work for years, and the Government's new proposals are inadequate. Although the Conservatives say that they have recognised the problem of the long-term unemployed, the presence of the Secretary of State for Employment prevents them from tackling it.
What a contrast there is between the Government's central proposal to help those who have been unemployed for two years and the Labour party's plans. A Labour Budget would provide a £75 a week tax rebate for employers, which is designed to end long-term unemployment. The Chancellor's central proposal is based on a national insurance rebate that, according to the Government's figures, which were repeated today, would offer an employer just £6 a week to take on someone who has been out of work for two years or more. British business has already said that the Government's proposals

1371
are not enough and will not work; the Institute of Personnel Management and the Institute of Directors have already made that clear.
Our scheme is ambitious. It would put the 300,000 people who become long-term unemployed each year back to work. We have costed our scheme, and our figures have been examined by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. I accept that it would cost money in the first year—about £100 million net—but by the second year public money would be saved because we would not have to pay to keep people unemployed. We would also save money by not having to pay income support and housing benefit. The Government have never understood that lesson. They are prepared to see the unemployment bill to the public purse go up and remain high.
I challenge the Employment Secretary to tell us why the Government do not accept our proposal. I suggest that the reason is the same as the one that will prevent any effective Government action on unemployment while that right hon. Gentleman stays in office—that he does not believe that it is the job of the Government to help. He has said in his speeches that action by Government confiscates personal responsibility.
The Chancellor has proposed a complex array of other measures. In truth, a snowstorm of small proposals may blind people on Budget day, but they are not enough to make a difference.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Lady is the first Opposition spokesman—
Mr. Ian McCartney: Get to the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman would like to see me with a prop, I am happy to move to the Dispatch Box. I have been in the House for a long time and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I can speak without that prop, but I am not proposing to do so for a very long time in the future.
As the hon. Lady is the first Opposition spokesman to cost any Labour proposal, does she accept that when she talks about a net cost she is presumably making great assumptions about the savings and benefits that will reduce the gross cost to that net cost? We have costed our policy honestly, without anticipating behavioural consequences. I do not know the gross cost of her proposal, but it must be far bigger than the cost she quoted to the House. Perhaps she will give its true cost.
My proposal is meant to reduce the cost on employers for the first year when they take on an unemployed person. Her proposal sounds like an expensive competitor to mine, but how is it logical to combine her proposal with a minimum wage, which would increase the cost of moving people from benefit into employment? Why cannot the Opposition get rid of that inherent and ridiculous contradiction in their policies to reduce unemployment?
Ms Harman: It is interesting to note that, when I criticised the proposal to put the long-term unemployed back to work, the person who jumped to his feet to defend it was not the Employment Secretary, who clearly has mixed feelings about it, but the Chancellor. We have done our costings and they have been examined by the Institute
1372
of Fiscal Studies. We say that there would be a net cost, taking into account the expenditure on the £75 tax break and the savings in income support and housing benefit.
The point about the scheme is not that it is complicated, not that it is not straightforward and obvious and not that it is not affordable; the point about the scheme is that a Labour Government would implement it, whereas the Tories, racked by division, are not prepared to take serious action on unemployment.
The Chancellor made several small proposals. With much fanfare, he announced that he will pilot workstart, but that has been piloted before. First, it was piloted in the March 1993 Budget. It was piloted again in the March 1994 Budget. Now it is to be piloted yet again. The scheme has three pilots, and still no take-off.
The Government have also proposed a pilot of jobmatch, a scheme that offers a job subsidy for part-tune workers. That, too, has already been piloted. If it was successful, why has it not been tried on a larger scale? The answer is that pilot projects are used by the Conservatives as an excuse for inaction.
Real action to combat unemployment needs an Employment Secretary who believes that Government must act to help the unemployed; it needs an Employment Secretary who is prepared to argue with the Treasury for programmes that make good economic sense; and it needs an Employment Secretary who believes in the Department of Employment. In short, it needs a different Employment Secretary.
The Government are tentative about measures to help the unemployed, but they do not bother with pilots of measures that hit the unemployed. Help with mortgage interest payments is to be cut—no pilots there. For some people, that will mean that the loss of their job means the loss of their home. Unemployment benefit is to be cut. Two hundred and fifty thousand unemployed people will be worse off because of the new jobseekers allowance.
We see the old Thatcherite Conservative party, unable to shake off the habit of punishing the unemployed for the Government's economic mistakes. The Chancellor says that he wants to attack unemployment, but the Employment Secretary is obviously much happier when he is attacking unemployed people.
The Employment Secretary does not believe that his Department has a role in training, either. Many unemployed people, especially long-term unemployed people, lack the skills they need to obtain a job. The Government's own figures show that unemployment continues to rise among the unskilled. The unskilled and the unemployed need training.
The Confederation of British Industry emphasised that businesses, too, want the Government to take a strong lead on training. The Government's own survey shows that a growing number of companies are complaining that skills shortages prevent them from expanding.
This year, the Government are already spending 40 per cent. less on training every unemployed person than Labour did in 1979, when there was nothing like the demand for technological skills that there is today.
Against that background, only a madman or a demagogue would cut the training budget—and that is where the Employment Secretary comes in. He will cut training for work, the major adult training programme, by one quarter in the next two years. The number of places on the scheme is to be cut by 40,000. He thinks—he said

1373
it again clearly in the debate, and he said it this morning—that if businesses want trained people, they will train them, and if businesses are not prepared to train people, it is because businesses do not want them, so why should the Government do it?
The Employment Secretary believes that training is not the job of Government. He seeks to justify cuts on the grounds that the scheme needs to be better targeted—he said that again today. Of course help must be targeted effectively and money must be well spent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask the Employment Secretary two questions. First, if training for work is as inefficient as the Employment Secretary says, whose fault is it? It must be the fault of the Government, which introduced the scheme as recently as last year.
Secondly, if he is worried about efficiency, why was the money not diverted instead to other training schemes? We know that it was not because the overall employment budget was also cut, which means that other training programmes will face cuts in their budgets too. The Employment Secretary's claims about efficiency are a cover for his dogmatic determination to slash the training budget.
Everyone who recognises the central importance of training for unemployed people, for people in work who want to upgrade their skills, for companies, and for our economy, will be dismayed that the Employment Secretary does not believe in his own Department's role in training. If he will not stand up for training in Government, who will?
As recently as a few weeks ago, the Employment Secretary professed his belief in a high-wage, high-skill economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yet he has cut his own training budget. The truth is that he is not committed to a high-skill economy and we have had countless briefings—presumably, and helpfully, from his own Department—in advance of the cut.
David Wastell in the Sunday Telegraph explains the reasons behind the Employment Secretary's decision to cut the training budget. It was partly based on being impressed
"by research in the United States, which found unemployed people who were given extensive training became less willing to take low skilled jobs."
The Employment Secretary protests his new-found belief in high skills and high wages, but he remains wedded to his vision of low skills and low wages. He believes that the only future for whole swathes of British people is in low-skill, low-wage jobs, and that is why he opposes a minimum wage. His claim to be worried about the job effects of a minimum wage is bogus.
The very essence, the hallmark, of the Government is indifference to mass unemployment. Most of the recent research on the effects of the minimum wage, as my hon. Friends have said, suggests that it does not cost jobs—quite the opposite. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admitted, in its analysis of the effects of the wages council in agriculture, that it did not have adverse effects on employment.
The Employment Secretary opposes the minimum wage because of dogma, not economic analysis. It is the same dogma that said in 1975, "You cannot have an Equal Pay Act; you cannot pay women the same rate as men. If you
1374
do, you would harm women's prospects in the Labour party"—[Laughter.] "It would harm women's opportunities in the labour market, and at one stroke they would all be driven home." The Equal Pay Act 1970 did not have that effect, and more women are now in the labour market than before.
The Employment Secretary does not offer a high-skill, high-investment, high productivity vision for Britain. He offers people the choice: no job or low pay, but topped up increasingly by the public purse.
The Employment Secretary does not believe either in Government ensuring that there is training for people in work. That is important. Today's unskilled and low-skilled people in work will be tomorrow's unemployed people. That is not simply the result of the decline of old industries. The demand for people with low or no skills declines relentlessly. Those workers feel insecure because they know that they are vulnerable.
Even when employers do invest in training—the Secretary of State quoted the figures—they concentrate on their white collar workers and neglect low-skilled workers. The CBI highlighted that issue in its Budget submission.
The Government should have recognised that the voluntary approach to employer training has failed. Labour would have used the Budget to ensure that employers make a fair contribution to the training of their own work force.
The Government's failure to act on training is obviously more of the Employment Secretary's handiwork. We should not be surprised that there is no effort to help people in work obtain the skills that they need, for the Employment Secretary is actually refusing £60 million that the European Commission offered to help retrain workers in declining industries. The reason is—I quote from the Financial Times—that he believes it to be
"part of a French-inspired"—
need I continue?—
"Commission effort to build up an industrial policy by subterfuge."
There we have it. When the right hon. Gentleman is offered the chance to help those who are threatened by unemployment, he falls back on the dogma that adequate training for those who are in work is not the business of the Government and the dogma of anti-Europeanism. His posturing on Europe damages employers, employees and the economy. Proposals that would help Britain are rejected because they come from Europe. His stance on Europe is not about winning for Britain in Europe but about political positioning in the faction-riven Tory party.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady alludes to objective 3 and objective 4 funding. The United Kingdom has not lost any money because of our stance of arranging to take objective 3 and not objective 4 funding. I do not want to dent the hon. Lady's argument, but I must tell her that all the decisions in that matter were taken before I became Secretary of State.
Ms Harman: The Commission seemed to take a different view, and it still says that £60 million could be available under objective 4. That is not being taken up because of the right hon. Gentleman's dogma.
British business will wait in vain for the Secretary of State to establish a European agenda that helps business because that will not happen. His European arguments are not about business or jobs but solely about the divisions

1375
at the heart of the Tory party. The Secretary of State has proved himself to be the enemy of any real Budget for jobs. He is the enemy of training, of measures to put people back to work, of the unemployed and of his own Department. He is the enemy within.
In the past few weeks, there have been momentous events in the Tory political calendar. There was the Queen's Speech, the European Communities (Finance) Bill and the Budget, and they all led to the most important event in the Tory calendar—the right hon. Gentleman's celebration of 10 years as a Member of Parliament. It is to be held at Alexandra palace tomorrow night. At last he is to have what he always wanted—his very own party.
But some of the guests have refused to join in the fun. The right hon. Gentleman must be asking himself, "Where are the glitterati of the Tory right wing?" Will Lord Tebbit be there? No, he will not. He had the date in his diary but he now discovers that he has a more pressing engagement. Lord Parkinson, too, has suddenly found another pressing engagement. Most hurtful of all, Lady Thatcher will not be there, because she too regrets that she has a prior engagement with a group of American business men. We in the Opposition are asking ourselves whether she could be declining the company of one favourite son to pursue the interests of the other.
The Secretary of State's party will, in every sense, reflect his style and substance, because it will be an occasion for balloons and fireworks. There will be a film about the life and times of Michael Portillo, and it will be set to music. Those who are present will be able once again to relive those glorious golden moments in his glittering career of service to the British people. It will feature his term as a social services Minister when he withdrew benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds and introduced the social fund.
It will feature the right hon. Gentleman's time in the Department of the Environment, which was memorably marked by his assertion that the poll tax was a vote-winner for the Tory party. It will also detail his tenure as Chief Secretary to the Treasury where, since the election, he spoke about his instinct for tax cuts while the Government introduced the biggest tax rises in history. In his current office he is cutting training and reducing help for the unemployed.
The Budget fails to tackle unemployment, it does not address insecurity at work, it fails to stop falling living standards and presses ahead with VAT on fuel—the unfairest tax of all. On Tuesday, the House will have the chance to reopen the issue of VAT on fuel, and in the vote Conservative Members will have a choice between honouring their election promises to constituents or siding with the Government. They all know the anger that their constituents feel about VAT on fuel. They should stand up for those constituents and vote with Labour.
In case they somehow feel moved by the Chancellor's claim that he is providing extra compensation, I must tell them that that is yet another fraud. The compensation scheme is a sham and Conservative Members cannot use it as an excuse for abandoning their constituents' interests. At the conclusion of the Budget debate they must join Labour in voting against the second stage of VAT on fuel.
As I have said, the Budget is a fraud. It is not a Budget for jobs, for economic prosperity or for fairness. It is the Budget of an exhausted regime, which is ideologically bankrupt and politically divided. That is why we shall vote against it on Tuesday.
6.5 pm
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on his powerful speech, which was one of the best expositions of its kind that I have ever heard. It is not easy to create a climate in which employers can provide more jobs, and perhaps the most difficult task for policy makers is to engage in the hard and clear thinking that is needed. My right hon. Friend did think clearly and firmly, and that is in stark contrast to the thinking of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), much of whose thinking has been around for a long time.
In about 1985, local authorities raised the issue of capital receipts being released, and it was clearly explained to me at that time that one must consider local authority borrowing. I beg the hon. Lady or someone in her team to find out the figures for local authority borrowing. The arguments have been well addressed and what the hon. Lady advocates is on other occasions claimed not to be Labour party policy. She advocates an increase in public borrowing because that would be the result of releasing local government capital receipts.
I have not been able to speak as a Back Bencher for about 10 years, although I am glad to say that this is not a maiden speech. An ex-Minister's first speech from the Back Benches is perhaps best described as akin to a bridegroom's speech at his second marriage after a first marriage which has been immensely happy but which, sadly, came to an end because of bereavement. I shall deliver an unashamed constituency speech, because that is what my constituents deserve after 10 long years.
Morecambe needs help. It has difficulties, but we are successfully fighting them and I hope that we shall win the battle for Morecambe's economic regeneration. Indirectly, I wish to speak about the creation of jobs in Morecambe, but I shall also cover some aspects of regional and industrial policy that are raised by concerned constituents after any Budget.
Morecambe receives Government assistance in various areas, but it does not receive any of the large sums that go to other areas in the north-west. My constituency is not in an assisted area, and is ineligible for assistance from any European Union structural fund. Earlier this year we fought hard to get objective 2 status under Interreg 2 funds, but we failed. Areas in the north-west that have industries in direct competition with my constituency often receive very substantial amounts of state and European aid under those headings.
I fear that I must speak about the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, which is in direct competition with Heysham port in my constituency. In February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked the Secretary of State for Transport what help the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company had received from the European Community and the Government over the past four years. He was told that, between 1990 and 1994, European regional development fund sums that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company was entitled to claim amounted to more than £6 million.
Such facts and figures are distressing and unfair. Heysham, a small harbour trading across the Irish sea, is just a short distance away from and in direct competition with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. To rub salt in Heysham's wounds, we failed to get objective 2

1377
status, but Merseyside achieved objective 1 status in July and will receive some £630 million over the next five years—some of which, it is anticipated, will go to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Heysham has received and will receive nothing under any of those headings.
There is clearly no level playing field, but despite those disadvantages Heysham is very successful.
Ms Eagle: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the deplorable, high and persistent levels of unemployment in the Merseyside area meet objective 1 criteria. Surely he is not suggesting that the real deprivation in that area should be dismissed because of a competition problem between two port authorities.
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady should listen carefully to what I am saying. Indeed, if she reads my speech tomorrow, she will realise that I am not advocating anything that will disappoint her. I am simply pointing out the manifest unfairness in the nature of the funding when two commercial enterprises are in direct competition.
Heysham port was acquired by Sea Containers in 1984, when the company purchased the Sealink interests of British Rail. It is a thriving small port, and over the past 10 years, more than £8 million has been invested in its infrastructure. In the mid-1980s, it benefited from the fact that it was not registered under the dock labour scheme.
The division of Sea Containers that handles the ferries and ports operation is the world's leading fast ferry operator and the United Kingdom's third major ferry company. It handles more than 8 million passengers and 1.6 million vehicles a year. It pioneered the introduction of high-speed ferries in 1990 and has revolutionised ferry travel with fast and top-quality customer service. Over the past six years, Heysham's tonnage throughput has doubled.
I mentioned earlier that Heysham was never a registered port under the dock labour scheme.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman attribute to any Government policy the fact that in his constituency unemployment has increased by 26 per cent. during the past five years?
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I will not cross swords with the hon. Lady on that point, because I am developing a wholly different point.
The port of Liverpool suffered considerably from the fact that it was burdened by the absurd provisions of the dock labour scheme—something created out of the lunacies imposed upon the nation by Labour Governments before 1979. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to think about that. It is all history, but I mention in passing that employers at the port of Liverpool received more than £7.5 million from the Department of Transport to assist with dock labour severance payments.
I do not object to the fact that Liverpool is now unshackled; I am most pleased that it is so. However, I hope that the Government will reconsider their industrial policies during this Session to determine whether the manifest unfairnesses that I have described can be eliminated or relieved. It cannot be right that one industry
1378
in one area of the north-west has such a tremendous advantage over another industry located nearby, which is a direct competitor.
The port of Liverpool certainly does not need all that assistance to generate jobs in Liverpool. It is expanding its interests rapidly, and earlier this year it acquired the Medway port and shipping interests. Such takeover bids for interests miles outside the assisted area and at the other end of the country are being facilitated by receipts of large sums of European and national Government grant.
We all know that at the end of the day the Treasury is the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to my comments and, in his discussions with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, will bear in mind the inequities that result from our method of dispensing national and European assistance.
6.17 pm
Mr. John Garrett: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that this was the Budget of the great prize of sustainable growth, and he referred to the wise use of the recovery from recession. Last year, he referred to the recovery under way. In 1993, his predecessor commended to us his Budget for sustained recovery; in 1992, he referred to an unparalleled growth in the living standards of the British people; and in 1991 he promised recovery from recession. We have had all those promises of recovery, yet the Red Book shows that next year's economic growth will be lower than this year's.
For the city that I represent, the Chancellor's words are cruel and hollow. During the past few months, the formerly relatively prosperous city of Norwich has been struck by economic catastrophe. Far from recovery, it has fallen into a trough of recession, the like of which we have never seen before. Our major employers have been struck by economic conditions that have led them to terminate the employment of literally thousands of workers. Norwich Union, our great insurance company, has, after years of growth, declared 1,200 redundancies over the next few years—an unprecedented experience for that company.
Nestlé-Rowntree proposes to close its factory in Norwich, which has been there for more than 100 years, over the next two years, with the loss of 900 irreplaceable jobs. Those are deadly blows to the city's economy. For Nestlé-Rowntree, it involves the closure of a very successful and profitable company. Norwich people who have worked there over generations heard the news with disbelief.
Anglia Television has made scores of people redundant. Colman's, a name synonymous with Norwich industry, is now up for sale, and nobody knows the future for that major employer. British Gas has announced the closure of its headquarters in Norwich, with the loss of 200 jobs. British Telecom has declared 130 redundancies with the closure of its telephone operators' office in the city.
During the past few weeks, we must have heard the announcement of more than 2,500 job losses in a city which, according to the House of Commons Library statistics section, in October 1994 had an unemployment rate of 12.5 per cent., with no less than a 17.9 per cent. male unemployment rate—a 70 per cent. increase since 1989. It is as if, having suffered not only the recession of the early 1980s and the late 1980s, Norwich has a new and exceptionally deep recession of its own.

1379
What struck me most about the Chancellor's Budget speech was the throwaway line at the very end announcing £24 billion off public expenditure during the next three years. That will lead to enormous public service redundancies. The best estimate is that 250,000 public service jobs will be lost, 100,000 of which will be in the civil service.
There will be heavy public service redundancies in Norwich—we can see them coming already—in the city council, in the county council and in Government Departments located there, including large local offices and national offices, such as Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. I fear that hundreds more will be added to the dole queue. The loss of the spending power of 2,000 or 3,000 new unemployed will lead to the loss of perhaps another 1,000 jobs in the economy.
Then we have the macro-economic effect of last year's Budget added to this year's Budget—a tax increase of £7 billion, which will again reduce economic growth and further dent the Chancellor's recovery. I should like to know what development assistance can be given to areas such as Norwich, which are suddenly plunged into recession in that way. We cannot wait for the boom that is to be engineered for the next election. Too many of my constituents will be tossed on to the scrap heap long before then.
I gather that housing is likely to be particularly hard hit be cuts in public expenditure and that homelessness will increase. The city that I represent was once exceptionally well housed, with a massive council house building programme now long since gone. If the Chancellor had wanted to promote recovery, he could have allowed the city council to use some of the receipts from the 6,000 council houses that have already been sold, in order to build new ones in a city that now has substantial and thoroughly miserable housing stress.
Nothing was done in the Budget to redress the problem noted by the previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Secretary of State for National Heritage, described as socialist by Lord Hanson, that the tax system holds back industrial investment by encouraging companies to pay out excessive dividends. The Budget will not encourage or induce companies in my constituency to invest in training or in new plant and equipment.
As to the social consequences of the Budget, the personal tax measures will make 84 per cent. of households worse off from April by an average of £2.40 a week, taking together the announcements for 1995 made in this Budget and the previous one. Immediately, the poorest will be the worst hit, particularly by the increase in VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent.
The increase in assistance for pensioners is nothing like compensation for the increase in the cost of fuel. As a result of that and other measures, such as cuts in public services on which the retired depend disproportionately, their living standards will fall. At the same time, they see the salaries of directors and top executives, particularly those in privatised utilities, rocketing upwards. Fairness in taxation and economic matters means a great deal to the British people, and what the Government are doing is palpably unfair.
The Budget for jobs' measures are too small to have any great effect on unemployment, yet there is work to be done everywhere in Britain. Our schools need to be
1380
repaired and refitted, and we need better railways and urban transit systems, new hospitals and thousands of new houses.
What should have been done? Surely the way to reinforce a recovery is through public investment, particularly in infrastructure—in the hospital that Norwrch needs and has needed for the past 20 years—and in public transport. Instead, we get a 12 per cent. reduction in public capital spending during the next three years, the equivalent of £3.6 billion in cuts, with the best calculation being the loss of 160,000 jobs across the economy.
The Budget is an irrelevance, and nowhere is it more irrelevant than in my constituency.
6.23 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My contribution, I hope, will be fairly brief, it will be pertinent and, in parts, it will be critical of the Government. I did not get much encouragement from the Budget until the last paragraph of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's speech, just before the conclusion, where he says:
"Taking into account the tax and public spending measures, I now expect to be able to reduce borrowing from £30 billion to £21½ billion in 1995–96, from the previously forecast £21 billion to £13 billion in 1996–97, and from £12 billion to £5 billion the year after that."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1103.]
My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on that because it clearly holds out immense hope and potential for the future. But at the same time, my right hon. and learned Friend has a duty to the country and the electorate at large, particularly, because we are talking about unemployment today, to the 2.5 million people who find themselves out of work.
Of course, I warmly welcome the measures, modest though they are in real terms, to assist the long-term unemployed, and the various schemes that my right hon. and learned Friend put forward to help them get back to work and, as it were, to cover the transition between unemployment and a return to work which, often for those on low incomes and the unskilled, is difficult because they lose more benefit than they receive in wages. Therefore, the transitional arrangements announced by my right hon. and learned Friend are welcome.
So too—we must put the measures in context and in perspective—is the modest assistance to employers to take on the long-term unemployed as employees. I welcome those measures, but we do not want to over-emphasise them or overstate the benefit that they will have. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) that the employers do not count them for a great deal and do not believe that they will be particularly effective. I only express the hope from the Conservative Benches that they will be more effective than perhaps employers believe at this time, particularly the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry.
But I must confess to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench that there was little to celebrate in the Budget delivered by the Chancellor. My right hon. and learned Friend missed a golden opportunity to improve the perception of the Government in the minds of the electorate, although I accept that he hopes to have much greater room for manoeuvre by the next Budget, which will be nearer to the date of the next general election.

1381
However, I must put down a marker to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I fear that the British electorate are now a little more sophisticated and cynical than many politicians appreciate. They will see through the antics of any tax-cutting Chancellor who gives away money for short-term electoral advantage close to a general election.
My right hon. and learned Friend had the chance, which he took, not to act imprudently or to buy favours, but rather to present the Government as having learnt from the lessons of the past. But has he listened to the British people? Has he learnt to respond to their wishes? How, from his Budget, will he meet the concerns of the people who write to Members in all parts of the House about the problems that they are facing today?
I shall tackle straight on the main issue of the Budget, which will be called the Budget of VAT on domestic heat and light. The decision to proceed, bull-headed, with the imposition of the second tranche of VAT on domestic fuel bills will be widely resented, and will reopen wounds that had been festering already for about 18 months. By the time all the admittedly modestly generous compensatory arrangements are added up, I simply do not believe that the revenue generated by that tax increase on a vital essential of life can possibly be justified, given the opposition that it has created.
My view, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, is that VAT on domestic fuel is fundamentally iniquitous as a tax on an essential part of life. To the elderly, the young and those with young families, heat and light are essential. The tax will hit hardest low-income families—not only pensioners, but the disabled and those who are in work but struggling to make ends meet on a limited income. They are not covered by any of the compensation packages that my right hon. and learned Friend announced this year or last year.
VAT on domestic fuel is widely perceived as unfair by a number of Conservative Members. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that no amount of compensation will eradicate the perception that the Government acted unjustly and unreasonably, and failed to respond to clearly expressed opposition from the public. Many of them wrote to me, not only my constituents, saying that they would gladly have borne an increase in income tax as a means-tested alternative to an across-the-board measure. When Ministers ask how I would raise the money another way, that is the answer I give. I should have preferred the money to be provided from direct taxation, which is means-tested and therefore paid in accordance with people's ability to pay.
People do not have any choice whether to heat their homes in winter, because, if they do not, they die. Many elderly people need rather more light than younger people. Elderly people also leave lights on at night, particularly if they live alone, for security and peace of mind. Many will feel that they can no longer do so because of higher bills.
The Budget missed an opportunity to give a real boost to manufacturing industry. Despite my repeated lobbying, my right hon. and learned Friend failed to give manufacturers the kick-start they still need, with the introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances to encourage investment in the new plant and products that would enable this nation to remain a major player in an increasingly competitive international market.
1382
Capital allowances would encourage investment, stimulate employment and provide particular help to small and medium businesses. They will provide employment in the months and years ahead, not big businesses. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said that large companies in the service or manufacturing sector are shedding labour even at a time when unemployment has dropped by just under half a million. The Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, and chambers of commerce and industry all believe that a 100 per cent. capital allowance would be immensely beneficial. It is a shame that that opportunity was missed.
Some people describe the film industry as a service industry, and others describe it as a manufacturing industry. I wish that my right hon. and hon. Friends would accept that if the film industry was granted 100 per cent. production cost write-offs in the first year, Britain would attract massive investment in that industry, bringing thousands of jobs. We should look at other countries within the European Union. Only recently, we lost a massive influx of film production, with all the jobs that that would have brought with it, to the Republic of Ireland because of the package which that country offers to encourage film production.
Mr. MacShane: As a result of the Budget, the grant to the British Film Institute has been cut by £600,000 in real terms. That will have a serious impact on one of the major institutions supporting the indigenous film industry.
Mr. Winterton: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and disappointment. I know well just how hard Mr. Sydney Samuelson of the British Film Commission works for this country's film industry. He is a tireless man, with a pedigree of knowledge that is second to none. If everyone was as committed to the industry as he and his family have been for several generations, this country would be more prosperous, and would have a sounder and larger economy.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South mentioned also the infrastructure. It is unfortunate that cuts have been made in our roads programme, because that will destroy jobs in the construction and civil engineering sectors. If we sought to improve our infrastructure, jobs could quickly be provided. Another result of cutting road construction will be an increase in transport costs borne by manufacturers, who will not then be as competitive. My right hon. and learned Friend's continuing obsession with inflation lies at the heart of that and a number of other problems.
Cutting public spending and raising interest rates to force inflation down is not the only answer to finding satisfactory economic solutions. Taking that action costs jobs and has only a limited impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. I share the view of the hon. Member for Norwich, South that the country needs a well targeted boost for economic growth and infrastructure expenditure. That would create more jobs and wealth, from which the Government would enjoy a greater tax take.
There needs to be an understanding also that high inflation was historically rooted in social and economic conditions that no longer exist. Inflation is not the danger that the Governor of the Bank of England likes to pretend. Recently, in a television programme on which I appeared with a Labour Member, I said that the person whom I

1383
should most like to see on the unemployment register was Mr. Eddie George, Governor of the Bank of England. His obsession with increasing interest rates when there is no real inflation in the economy is a danger to our economic recovery.
The economy's problems result from matters over which we have no control, such as the cost of imported raw materials—the prices of which we do not dictate. Given the recovery of our economy, exporters of such materials will seek to improve their profitability by increasing prices, and those increased costs will be passed on to consumers.
In our own manufacturing sector, there is little room for more squeezing and tightening. If there is more cost-squeezing, any further chances for our manufacturing base will disappear.
My hon. Friend the Paymaster General was kind enough to see me and colleagues before the Budget, when I put some of those points to him directly and forcefully. I did not mince my words, and I am not doing so now. I do not believe that one should mince one's words in this place.
The current economic recovery is export-led, and the Government should be congratulated on that. If there are price rises in the system, they relate to imported raw materials over which we have no control—and on which interest rate rises have no effect. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister: please counsel Eddie George to stop talking about any further interest rate rises? If one wants to kill off the economy and the improvements in it, increase interest rates again. But if one does that, one will have a lot to answer for, and the chances of the Conservatives winning the next general election will be nil.
I make a plea. Let us have no more talk about rises in interest rates; manufacturing industry wants them like it wants a hole in the head. But having said that, I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on the reduction in the Export Credits Guarantee Department insurance premiums. They should never have been as high as they were. I welcome the reduction, as I also welcome the additional resources to do business with important developing countries. I think that an additional £300 million is being provided. I warmly welcome that.
The Budget was a little dull. It missed a number of golden opportunities to show the electorate that the Government were listening. They should have pegged VAT on domestic heat and light at 8 per cent. I give due notice that next Tuesday I shall most certainly support the enabling amendment to provide the opportunity for a vote on that subject. I hope that my hon. Friends who have the courage of their own convictions—I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—and who sincerely believe that the tax is pernicious and wrong and should not be raised from 8 per cent., will do likewise. We are not voting for Labour in doing that. We are voting from our own conviction and principle, believing that what the Government are doing is wrong.
The golden opportunity to help and give a kick-start to manufacturing industry was also missed. It was, perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Minister would say, a Budget that is "Steady as you go; we are recovering."
Let me finish, as I have on one or two other occasions, with an optimistic comment for the Government. Of course inflation is at a 27-year low. Wonderful. Of course
1384
unemployment is coming down, but it is not coming down enough. Yes, we have substantial economic growth—4 per cent. Super. It is higher, I believe, than in any other country in the European Community, and the Government can take proper and full credit for that.
But I ask my hon. Friends to listen to the grass roots of the Conservative party. Listen to the people outside. Listen to small and medium-sized businesses. If they had done that, the Budget could have had a number of real rabbits to come out of the hat, and we could look to the future rather more optimistically than we can now.
6.42 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a window of opportunity to announce measures to attack the root cause of this country's economic decline—mass, long-term unemployment, fuelled by persistent, low skills in our work force. The gap between the low skills of our work force and the high skills of other western nations is continuing to widen, and the hill that we must climb to achieve sustainable growth in our economy is getting higher and higher.
Throughout the country, traditional industries, in manufacturing and engineering, have suffered decades of decline. In my constituency of Eastleigh—a community created from employment in heavy engineering—some 25,000 people were employed in its factories, workshops and railway yards until recent times. It was a community that, generation after generation, had applied its skills and earned its living in manufacturing industry, creating the wealth that underpinned our economic strength.
Today, fewer than 5,000 people work in what remains of Eastleigh's manufacturing industry. A third of unemployed people in Eastleigh have been unemployed for more than a year—a pattern that, as hon. Members will know, is repeated in towns and cities throughout the country. The lack of investment in modern technology and in creating a highly skilled work force has meant that our industry has been unable to remain competitive in the global market place. As company after company has closed, men and women who have given years of good value to their employers, building up skills, experience and loyalty, have been thrown out of work in their hundreds and thousands. Many of those people are redundant for the very first time in their lives, with no prospect of finding a worthwhile job and no opportunity to retrain to develop new, high-level skills.
For those who are over 50, the future is bleak indeed. Many are self-motivated, eager to build on their existing skills and to study and acquire recognised qualifications as a new route to a new and worthwhile career.
Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the statistics on that very point—in 1979, 11 per cent. of men aged over 50 were unemployed, whereas the figure now, I believe, is 55 per cent.—demonstrate a really serious social issue in our society, which needs to be dealt with, and quickly?
Mr. Chidgey: I agree, and I shall continue on the same point.
A motivated, eager person over 50 who is trying to pursue third-level education and training at a college or university in order to begin a new, worthwhile career will find that no help is available towards his living costs.

1385
People over 50 do not qualify for a student loan. The Government have decreed that a student loan is not a worthwhile investment.
For thousands of young people, the prospects have been equally bleak. The training for work schemes available to them have not been designed to develop high skills, leading to productive employment. The initiatives are aimed at providing the minimum skills necessary to get a job—not training that will lead to worthwhile careers, but minimalist training to get any old job, just as long as it leads to one fewer being on the unemployment statistics. The Government's training programmes aim to provide the least, when they should aim to provide the most.
Given those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that nearly 1 million people in this country have been out of work for more than a year—some 40 per cent. of the unemployed total. Despite some 18 months of apparent economic recovery, the number of long-term unemployed has hardly fallen at all. The Government's training for work schemes are not succeeding in reducing long-term unemployment. Fewer than one third of those who have been out of work between one and two years and who enter a scheme end up with a stable job.
Of those out of work for more than two years, fewer than one in five find and remain in work. Fewer than half of all scheme entrants complete their agreed training. Only just over a half of those who complete a training for work scheme end up with a qualification or even a credit towards one.
There is a desperate need to create high-quality training programmes for the unemployed and to create additional intensive schemes targeted at the long-term unemployed. Long-term unemployment is a major barrier to re-employment. For those who have been out of work for more than two years, the chances of getting back into work rapidly approach zero. At the same time, the average cost to the Exchequer of each unemployed person is £9,000 per year, or more. The cost of supporting people who are unemployed for six months or longer is currently running at £11 billion per year in benefits alone.
In his speech to the House at the beginning of the Budget debate, the Chancellor recognised the crisis of the long-term unemployed. He spoke of the dangers of creating an underclass, excluded from economic activity—sentiments that I am sure we all share. He has seen the window of opportunity in the economy of getting people off benefit and back to work.
The Secretary of State for Employment, too, has spoken of his overriding objectives of encouraging job creation and getting more people into work. In his reply to me earlier in the week, he said:
"I share the hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction with the present level of training for work. If we are going to spend that much money from taxpayers' sources on training for work, we should be able to ensure that more people get jobs."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1066–7.]
The right hon. Gentleman is right: getting people off benefit and support from the state and into productive work—thus creating tax revenue—is not so much a free lunch for the economy as a veritable banquet.
For that reason, I welcome the Chancellor'sinitiatives in cutting national insurance contribution rates for the low-paid, offering an NIC holiday to employers who take on the long-term unemployed and proposing benefit
1386
reforms. I also welcome the expansion of workstart and other such schemes. But why so little? With existing training for work schemes failing to make any impact on long-term unemployment, and with long-term unemployment costing the Exchequer £11 billion a year in benefit alone, why does the Secretary of State for Employment propose to provide only £680 million for schemes to target a major failure in our economy?
It seems to me that the Secretary of State's objectives of encouraging job creation and returning more people to work have been crushed by a Chancellor who is working to a different agenda—an agenda the prime concern of which is to hoard tax revenues to provide giveaway tax cuts before the next general election. That becomes blatantly clear when we examine the detail of the employment proposals. The benefit reforms are far too modest. Tinkering with the system is not the way to improve work incentives; the pilot scheme that is now being recommended—which is equivalent to the Liberal Democrat proposal for a low-income benefit—should be adopted as a national programme.
Why does the adoption of an employer's NIC holiday apply only to those who have been unemployed for more than two years before being taken on? Why will the unemployed have to work for a further 18 months, until April 1996, before they can benefit from the scheme? Again, they are being given too little too late.
The Budget proposed to extend the community action programme, providing a modest 40,000 opportunities for each of the next three years. Why so few opportunities? The proposals for a citizens service in our alternative Budget created opportunities for up to a quarter of a million people, to use the skills of the unemployed and provide training for the young.
With the total of those who have been unemployed for more than a year still nearly 1 million, the Workstart pilot scheme is to be marginally expanded, with yet another pilot scheme that will provide incentives for just 5,000 people who have been unemployed for more than two years. Even that inadequate scheme will run for only one year, from April 1995.
The Budget presented a major opportunity to grasp the initiative, and to introduce a working benefits scheme in line with our proposals. Under our scheme, social security benefits paid to people who had been unemployed for more than six months would be converted to vouchers payable to employers to subsidise training. The value of the vouchers would fall steadily in each week of employment, avoiding an open-ended commitment; the cost to the state would be negligible, and always less than the total cost of benefit and tax revenue forgone. To benefit from the scheme, employers would have to pay wages at least equal to the value of the vouchers. They would be eligible only if the new employees were genuine additions to the work force.
A crucial difference between the working benefits scheme and Workstart is that employers would be required to provide extended quality training for new employees. By re-establishing working habits and acquiring new skills, long-term unemployed people would become capable, productive members of the work force. Instead of providing a bonus for the employer, the scheme would provide an investment in the employee—an investment in skills and "employability".

1387
The Budget has not only failed to grasp the initiative by providing training schemes that would help significantly to return the long-term unemployed to work but has cut existing training funds for training and enterprise councils. The need for high-quality training is now crucial if we are to rebuild our skills base, but instead of securing support for their schemes TECs will now have to lower the quality of the training that they provide.
While there is little of substance in the Budget to provide improved training for the unemployed, job creation opportunities have been slashed. By cutting public-sector capital expenditure—that was mentioned earlier—the Budget puts at risk thousands of jobs in the construction industry, which has already been severely damaged by the recession. The proposed £400 million cuts in the roads programme should have been transferred to investment in the public transport system—particularly rail—to provide modern, efficient networks and ease the burdens on business. That, too, has already been mentioned. Reliance on private finance for public infrastructure has failed in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will succeed in the future.
For the unemployed, the unskilled and those trying to retrain to improve their qualifications and secure a worth-while job, this Budget offers little. There are no plans to invest in our infrastructure and the railways to create jobs; no plans to invest in education or quality training to improve our skills base; and no plans to invest in modernising industry to give our manufacturing firms a competitive edge. In fact, the only plan to emerge from the Budget is the Government's attempt at self-preservation.
6.55 pm
Mr. John Townend: Every politician needs a bit of good luck. Certainly good fortune has shone on the Chancellor over the past 12 months, with the economy performing better than at any time in living memory. Who would have thought two and a half years ago, when we were swept out of the exchange rate mechanism and the pound fell, that we would now have the lowest inflation for 25 years? Who would have thought that we would have an export-led recovery, and that—as growth was secured—we would not suck in imports that would worsen the balance of trade? In fact, our trade deficit is falling dramatically, and will halve in the next year. That, combined with low interest rates and unemployment falling more rapidly than it is anywhere else in the western world, was certainly a good basis for the Budget.
The Chancellor's greatest achievement this year, however, has been his success in bringing the budget deficit under control. As recently as 1993–94, that deficit was rising at a rate of £1 billion a week, and was expected to peak at £50 billion a year—an appalling figure. This year—as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out—the Chancellor has got it down to £21.5 billion, and within three years it will be nil: we will have a balanced budget. As my hon. Friend said, that is a wonderful achievement.
The achievement, however, has not been devoid of pain. Initially, the Government were not prepared to grasp the nettle sufficiently to deal with public spending; the country has had to accept some swingeing tax increases, the last of which will be implemented this year. Last year, thankfully, the Chancellor began to put pressure on
1388
spending Ministers by not allowing them to spend the contingency reserve; this year he has reduced the planned public sector borrowing requirement by no less than £8.5 billion, of which £6.9 billion has come from the control total.
If any hon. Members have gained the impression that the Chancellor has become "Ken, the mad axeman of spending", let me reassure them. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is entirely wrong: the real cuts in the control total next year amount to only 0.8 per cent. in real terms, which is more than covered by the £3.5 billion reduction.
Whatever anyone says, overall there is no cut in Departments' volume of expenditure in real terms. Indeed, in priority areas the Chancellor has increased expenditure, with an extra real-terms increase of 1 per cent. in education spending, an extra £1.3 billion in health service spending and an extra £150 million to be spent on law and order.
How has "Ken the magician" done it? He has secured most of the savings from lower inflation, which is undoubtedly the Government's major achievement. In the past, when a control total was included in an estimate of inflation, and inflation subsequently turned out to be lower, Departments have rubbed their hands and spent more. I pay tribute not only to the Chancellor but to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: for this year, most of that windfall has been clawed back and has helped to reduce the PSBR.
I am delighted that the Chancellor has listened to those of us who have said, for some years now, that the Government should follow the example of the private sector. During the recession, every firm in the country had to cut its overheads to survive. We have said that we should follow the example of the privatised industries which, once they were privatised, rapidly got rid of the enormous overmanning. We have made it clear that we consider that there is a great deal of overmanning in the public sector. I was delighted when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that he intended to freeze the cash spent on running costs for four years. That will be equivalent to a real-terms reduction of 10 per cent.
Despite all the accusations from the Opposition that we are the party that is always cutting public expenditure, we are still a high-spending Government. General Government expenditure, excluding privatisation, is still 42.5 per cent. of GDP. If the Opposition were in office, it would be about 50 per cent. of GDP. The current level is still too high and on present plans it will be the turn of the century before we get it back to the 1988–89 level.
As a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's successful management of the economy I suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have only one major task left and that is to reduce the overall burden of taxation back to or below the level it was at the last election. That will be no easy task, because tax and national insurance have risen from 33.75 per cent. of GDP in 1993–94 to, according to page 84 of the Red Book, 37.25 per cent. in 1996–97.
I should like to give my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the benefit of some ideas about where they might make some cuts next year. I think that they will have to intensify the pressure on public spending over the next 18 months if they are to deliver the tax cuts that we expect.

1389
I want to look at one or two areas that, for some surprising reason, seem to have been sacrosanct. First, we are now spending £2.36 billion on overseas aid. Most people accept that a great deal of overseas aid is wasted. The west has poured billions of pounds into Africa for over 40 years, but has not solved any of the problems. We all know about the amount going into Swiss bank accounts, the money that is wasted and the amount spent on arms.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Now that we are imposing the second tranche of VAT on fuel, my pensioners say to me, "If the Government are so hard-up that they have to tax fuel, how can they afford to give so much away to foreigners, particularly when so much of it is wasted?" I think that they have a point, and we could well cut half a billion from that budget next year.
I shall loyally support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Lobby on the VAT vote, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same, whatever their views. We have made the decision, and if we had to go back on it at this stage—I hesitate to say this in the House—it could adversely affect the financial markets. If the markets took it badly, it could force up interest rates and that is the last thing that we would want. However, having given 44 per cent. of the tax back in relief, for which we do not receive any credit, I believe that it would have been wiser to put VAT on newspapers instead of on fuel. I think that we will pay a heavy political price for that tax.
We should also look at the arts budget. This year, the National Heritage Department budget tops £1 billion for the first time. In view of the amount that will be received from the national lottery which is to be spent on arts and sport, perhaps we should look at that next year.
The biggest spender is the social security budget, which goes up inexorably year after year. It is now £73 billion—28.5 per cent. of our total spending. We spend more on social security than we do on health, education and defence combined. That is why I am delighted to welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to try to get the long-term unemployed back into work. They are first-class proposals. However, I was not convinced by the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the reasons why we have to wait until 1996 for the national insurance holiday. I should have thought that, if it was a good scheme, the Departments could act a little more quickly.
We must intensify our attempts to stamp out fraud. There is a great deal of fraud and we all know about the people in the black economy, earning money in the real world and still claiming benefits. If it will help to have a national identity card, let us get on and deal with it.
I welcome the help for small businesses, in particular the venture capital trust and the transitional rate relief of £600 million with regard to the business rating revaluation. I hope that the proposals on venture capital will deal with an omission in the market. At present, most venture capital wishes to have a guaranteed exit after seven or eight years either by the outright sale of the company or by a flotation. Many of our most successful businesses are in their third or fourth generation and those involved do not want to sell them. However, they are often short of capital, and we should look at new sources.
1390
We should also look at excise duties and cross-border shopping. I declare an interest, since, as everybody in the House knows, 100 per cent. of my working life has been spent in the drinks business. Therefore, I am speaking with a knowledge of the industry. I am pleased that my business is in the north of England rather than on the south coast. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the problem is growing. It will not go away, but will get worse every year. The Treasury has underestimated the effect on the Revenue. There was a change in the method of assessing duty on beer last year and we should have been looking for a considerable increase in beer duty when we did away with the waste allowance for brewers.
We must take into account the results of this cross-border trade—not only the personal buying, but the bootlegging and smuggling, which is getting worse. There are signs that criminal elements are becoming involved and we all know what happened in America when criminal elements became involved during prohibition. It is not only the loss of revenue from the excise duty that is costing us money. There is the loss of VAT, the effect of corporation tax on the profits of the companies involved, the loss of jobs for the people in the businesses closing down. It is said that the amount of beer coming in is equivalent to the production of four provincial-sized breweries.
I was delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that he now accepts the problem, but his solution was not to reduce duty but
"to work with our European partners to bring duties more in line."— [Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol.250, c.1096.]
Does my right hon. and learned Friend really think that the French will co-operate and put up duties on alcohol, particularly on wine, which they consider to be an agricultural product, in order to stop British shoppers pouring over the channel to Calais, putting money into the pockets of French shopkeepers and, more importantly, putting VAT in the pockets of the French Government?
The only solution to the problem is to cut our duties progressively. I accept that financial constraints prevented us from having a major cut this year, but I would have liked to have seen a start. We must move progressively over a number of years until the differential is no more than 50 per cent. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend listens to what I have said, and that we will see some action next year.
This is a safe but unspectacular Budget in which the Chancellor has, quite rightly, given overwhelming priority to fiscal rectitude and reducing the budget deficit. I applaud that warmly. This year he has achieved more than anyone expected. I hope that the Budget will give us the platform to continue the economic recovery so that we will be able to fulfil our final pledge to bring taxes down at the next election. The help to small businesses and to the long-term unemployed is welcome. With steady Eddie at the Bank of England and careful Kenneth at the Treasury, we can sleep soundly at night, knowing that the country's finances are in safe hands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on speeches between now and 9 o'clock.
7.9 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) down that line, but I noted that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gave an honest and passionate speech in which he highlighted the essential need of the young and elderly for heat and light.
I should like to discuss another need in life: housing. I am of the firm opinion, as are local authority representatives and construction industry workers with whom I have discussed the Budget, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed a golden opportunity to meet the housing needs of the citizens of this country and to blend those needs into economic growth and regeneration, especially of inner-city areas.
The need and demand for affordable rented housing is shown in the figure that various organisations have bandied about for a long time. They say that 100,000 new homes are required every year to meet housing needs, to give real choice and to achieve stability in housing.
The pool of affordable rented housing is diminishing day by day. As every hon. Member knows from attending advice bureaux and surgeries, housing is the issue in the vast majority of constituency cases. I am becoming despondent that I have no answers, and I experience sheer frustration when people seek my help.
According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, since 1981, the social rented sector has shrunk by more than 1 million homes and, under the right-to-buy scheme, council houses are being bought twice as fast as houses are being built by housing associations. The new build by local councils is so insignificant that it has no effect on ever-growing waiting lists. In most authorities, new build is non-existent. The institute argues that the Government's housing and economic policies must be brought into line or both will fail.
Action must be taken to increase the supply and to keep down the cost of rented housing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed miserably in the autumn Budget. What will be the cost of that failure to boost house building, repair and renewal? The cost will be that more and more people will languish on housing waiting lists, more homeless people will be on the streets and more houses will fall into disrepair. That is happening while 500,000 construction workers remain on the dole when they could be employed in the building, repair and improvement of houses.
The construction sector has always acted as a barometer, indicating the economy's strength. In housing, the needs indicator should be the measure by which resource requirements are measured. Research emanating from the Housing Corporation clearly demonstrates that the Government are under-investing in social rented houses.
When I was a local councillor, local authorities were the main providers of low-cost, affordable housing until the Government, with their distaste, almost bordering on hatred, for local councils sought to introduce a new system. Housing associations were no longer to have a complementary role in supporting local authority housing. They were, however, given the prime role of providing housing financed by the Housing Corporation.
Housing associations' building programmes are suffering the same fate as those of local authorities. The Government have cut the Housing Corporation's finance
1392
to the tune of about £300 million since its inception, and it is £6 million down from last year's autumn Budget. That has meant that there is more reliance on the private money market. The outcome of that is a cut in building starts, high interest rates, rent rises, staff sackings and offers of inferior-quality housing. Those are the alternatives that face housing associations.
For local authorities like mine in Manchester, the basic credit approval was reduced by 35 per cent. in 1994–95, which has already severely limited the city council's ability to invest in mainstream programmes outside targeted initiatives, such as estate action schemes and city challenge. Manchester's good performance in securing estate action schemes has enabled the authority to maintain a programme of improvement, reorganisation and remodelling of poorly designed estates. The discontinuation of the estate action programme will be a severe blow to housing authorities such as Manchester.
The single regeneration budget will not provide sufficient levels of support for investment in public housing in the years to come. With mainstream funding, Manchester's estate action investment will amount to £29.5 million in 1995–96. A city officer told me that, by 1998, it will have plummeted to zero. Local authorities will face severe difficulty in presenting any coherent investment programmes. The single regeneration budget will not be an adequate replacement. It is estimated that it will provide only 20 per cent. of investment by 1998. The move away from estate action is a significant blow in housing terms. In that context, any significant reduction in capital allocations will have a serious impact on the planned programmes of housing activity.
In Manchester, the private sector renovation programmes have fallen into disarray. Housing associations have not had the finance to rehabilitate older terraced housing stock, repossessions and absentee landlords. We have the worst private sector housing stock conditions in the north-west of England. In some private property areas, tenants have vacated housing that could not be rescued. They left because of vandalism and break-ins, and they liken their area to streets in Beirut. One husband and wife that I know cannot go out together because one has to keep guard on their house. Sometimes when they go shopping, they call in the neighbours to act as sentries.
Programmes to tackle derelict housing rely on a special capital grant for 60 per cent. of the costs and on support from housing investment programmes. Any reduction in either of those two elements will cause irretrievable damage to the programme to rid Manchester of an ever-increasing cancer in its midst.
It should be noted that, in Manchester, more than five times as many empty houses exist in the private sector than in the public sector. Many of those homes belong to housing associations. The city council is attempting to set up a partnership with housing associations, private landlords and lending institutions to put together the largest empty property initiative in the country, but Government co-operation is essential. The Budget has failed to provide that co-operation.
Because of the limited time, I cannot expose the many failures involving housing in Manchester that have arisen since I was a councillor there. To maximise the potential for investment, Manchester is working in a partnership which, if supported by central Government, may enable the city council to generate investment in housing estates,

1393
which need fundamental and basic improvements. Manchester city council has worked closely with the Government and made every effort to collaborate, and it should receive recognition for the part that it has played. Regrettably, however, in the climate of continuing restrictions on public spending, the outcome will be longer waiting lists, estates and all the private sector houses falling into dereliction—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.19 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: I was proud to be a Minister in Her Majesty's Government, and especially pleased to have had responsibility for economic development, as well as the environment, in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt in my mind that there is more cause for real hope in the Province today than there has been for a whole generation.
The Northern Ireland economy weathered the recession well, and should benefit substantially from peace. Trade, tourism and inward investment will all be gainers, and I welcome the details on the inward investment conference that the Secretary of State announced earlier today. However, unemployment in the Province remains the highest in the United Kingdom, at about 13 per cent., although the differential has narrowed significantly in recent years.
Long-term unemployment is a particular problem in the Province, as in many other parts of the United Kingdom. About half the people out of work are long-term unemployed, so I welcome all the measures in the Budget designed to help such people. Some hon. Members have criticised those measures as inadequate, but I think it right that schemes should start as pilot schemes and then, if they are shown to work effectively and to offer value for money, we can build on them later on the basis of experience.
The British economy is in remarkably good shape. We have low inflation, rising output, falling unemployment and rapid export growth. Perhaps it is the rapid export growth—8 per cent. this year, and 7.5 per cent. forecast for next year—that comes as the greatest surprise to some commentators. A shrinking balance of payments deficit when the economy is growing rapidly is not something that most people would have forecast. Instead, they would have forecast rapidly increasing consumer expenditure, sucking in extra imports.
That welcome change has come about partly because of the competitiveness resulting from the devaluation of sterling in 1992, but also because of the more general measures adopted by the Government to increase the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy. That is what the debate is really about. Jobs will be created only if the economy is more competitive.
I was interested to read about the 1994 World Competitiveness Report, details of which were published recently by the Confederation of British Industry. That report, which was compiled by the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management, shows that in terms of domestic economic strength, the United Kingdom moved up between 1993 and 1994 from 19th to 12th in the rankings for competitiveness within the OECD countries.
1394
The United Kingdom ranked sixth in terms of Government policies conducive to competitiveness. According to the CBI, the report says:
"We are considered to have a relatively low level of state interference in business, distortion of competition, direction of investment, or pricing policies. Also, fiscal policies treat enterprises in an equitable manner and we have relatively flexible labour markets."
We need to build on those achievements if we are to create more jobs. A minimum wage cannot be the answer. The answer must be for the Government to get off the backs of businesses and make it easier for them to create jobs. I welcome all the measures in the Budget that seek to do that.
Given that we now have an economy in such good shape, the big question now is how to sustain the recovery. I think that the Budget judgment is about right. We must continue to adopt a tight monetary and fiscal stance, so long as the economy is growing rapidly, as it is now, at 4 per cent. Even next year it is forecast to grow at 3.25 per cent., which appears to be above its trend rate.
We often tend to exaggerate the influence that the Government can have over the economy as a whole, but there can be no argument about the fact that public finances constitute an area in which the Government have a clear responsibility. I welcome the fact that we have public finances under control. Table 6A.1, on page 131 of the Red Book, shows that public expenditure is now falling as a proportion of gross domestic product. However, we still have a long way to go before we return to the levels of 1988–89.
I should like to think that we might set ourselves the target of what was achieved only 30 years ago in 1964, when public spending represented only 36 or 37 per cent. of GDP. At least we should aim to bring public spending below 40 per cent. of GDP and then keep it there.
Another interesting chart in the Red Book is chart 6.6, on page 115, which shows the trend in direct running costs of Departments. The measures that the Chancellor has announced—to cut the direct running costs of the civil service by 10 per cent. in real terms—are tough, but they represent the right approach. I am sure that it is right to try to protect services while cutting the cost of administering them.
That will result in a radical review of the way in which many Departments conduct themselves. The Treasury has given a lead by reducing its number of senior civil servants, and that example could usefully be followed elsewhere in Whitehall. Under the proposed arrangement, it will not be an option to go in for salami slicing, cutting bits here and bits there. Departments will have to carry out fundamental reviews of their operations. They will have to set up more executive agencies to deliver their services, while maintaining a slim administration.
I was interested to hear that although the Chancellor had felt able to increase spending on health and on the police service, which I welcome, he had cut the roads programme. I have mixed feelings about that, because clearly the United Kingdom needs a substantial roads programme, although the programme has already been substantially increased in the past few years. I ask the Minister of State whether he thinks that, in view of the reductions, the Government will still go ahead with the M25 link roads or the proposal to widen the M4 through Slough to 12 lanes, six in each direction. I do not believe

1395
that we need those developments, and I hope that, as a result of the cuts, they will be either deferred or abandoned altogether.
Two years ago, when the public sector borrowing requirement was approaching £50 billion, who would have thought that today we would have had such firm control over public finances? The fact that next year the PSBR is to fall to £21.5 billion is most welcome. Soon we shall comply with the Maastricht conditions on total borrowing, which is forecast to peak at 49.25 per cent. of gross domestic product, compared with the 60 per cent. reference level specified by the Maastricht treaty.
That is the principal achievement of the Budget. We now have sound public finances on which to build in the future. That has meant that there was no great scope for tax cuts or tax reform in the Budget, but I welcome the measures to encourage investment in small businesses, especially the measures to improve the attraction of venture capital trusts and the enterprise investment scheme. I believe that those will be successful in encouraging risk equity investment into new technology and manufacturing.
I also welcome the fact that more small businesses will be able to pay their PAYE and national insurance contributions to the Revenue quarterly rather than monthly. That will achieve a useful reduction in the burden on business.
As I have said, there was not much scope for tax reform, but I should have liked to see more tax simplification. I suspect that we shall have another highly complex Finance Bill, following last year's massive Bill, and I am pleased to hear that Lord Howe is now chairing a committee to consider how we can try to simplify our tax regime. I hope that, when the committee makes its recommendations to reform the law, the Treasury will consider them seriously. If we consider the income and corporation taxes Acts as a whole, there can be no doubt that the legislation is far too complex.
There is not much time left. I should like to mention one omission from the Budget. I should have liked to see some help for charities along the lines proposed by the Charities Tax Reform Group. Charities are carrying an extra burden of VAT. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to consider that in the future. Subject to that, I welcome the Budget, because it establishes sound public finances.
7.29 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: This is the first time that the Budget speech has been available on Internet, but the people who read it will have been disappointed. I checked what else the Government were doing on Internet, hoping to get hold of some information which might be of some use in this evening's debate.
I looked at the page on the worldwide web, which is put out by the Department of Trade and Industry and it turned out to be a large file. It took several minutes to download, and while I was waiting I wondered what on earth the information could be. Would it be useful information that would help my constituents, such as a list of which banks were actively promoting the loans guarantee scheme or details of the job seeker's allowance—something of real use?
1396
When the information arrived, it was extremely disappointing. It turned out to be a colour picture of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor). Nothing daunted, I surfed a little further on this wave of information and downloaded another large file. When that turned out to be a colour picture of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), I am afraid that I just gave up.
That illustrates the attitude of the Government extremely well. On a facility with the capability of providing useful information, we found pictures of Ministers and copies of their speeches. It was more like an extended election address.The Government are driven in one direction only—to try to con the British public into giving the Conservatives a fifth term. They will be disappointed, I am sure. It is obvious that all the penny pinching and cuts this year are to allow the Chancellor to put in place the bribe package before the next election. But the British people will not be conned.
The British people have realised that the Tories cannot be trusted with tax. They will remember their local Conservative candidates saying before the last election, "There is no need to extend VAT," "There are no plans to raise VAT," and, even more dishonestly, "We are the party of low taxation." What a joke. Can anyone believe anything said by a Tory candidate at the next election when the Tories have raised taxes by the equivalent of 7p in the pound? It is obvious that the elderly and the poor are being made to pay for the Government's dishonesty. They are paying for the Government's ineptitude and the encouragement for fat cats to become even fatter.
While we see around us the stress and pain of poor housing, unemployment, low pay and inadequate pensions, the chief executive of British Gas basks in the luxury brought by a £500,000 a year salary. He then has the cheek to put up gas prices, adding to the agony of VAT on fuel, and then to offer discounts to those sufficiently well-heeled to be able to pay by direct debit. One of my constituents who normally pays his bill by direct debit is so outraged by the iniquity of this that he has written to me to say that he intends to cancel his direct debit forthwith and to do everything possible to ensure that British Gas gets as little of his money as possible this winter, even if it means living in freezing conditions.
It is now clear that the people of Britain are fed up with Tory injustice, tired of Tory sleaze and want a better, brighter, fairer future, which the Tory Government are incapable of providing.
My constituency has a large private rented housing sector. I wish to talk a little about that and about the effects of the cuts in housing benefit announced earlier this week by the Chancellor. I have to declare an interest because part of my house in Cambridge is let--much below the market rent, I have to say. More than 3,000 tenants in the private rented sector in Cambridge receive housing benefit, and market rents in Cambridge are high. A basic bedsit averages about £45 a week and a two-bedroom flat about £108 a week. In many cases, rents are as high as in London.
The use of private rented accommodation is feasible only if it is either poor quality and therefore cheap, or if the tenant earns a high salary. Most tenants receive housing benefit, of course. That is what makes it possible for them to use the private rented sector. I learned from my council housing department today that the rent allowance threshold in Cambridge is likely to be about £71 a week. Many tenants in the city will receive housing

1397
benefit for property that is more expensive than that. I wonder what will happen to those tenants when their housing benefit is reduced to finance the Government's electicn bribe. Some will get into debt, some will fall into arrears, landlords will serve eviction orders and some tenants will be thrown on to the street.
The reduction in housing benefit is an admission that the Housing Act 1988 has failed. That Act deregulated rents and permitted landlords to charge whatever they thought they could get. Opposition Members warned the Government of the day that that would have a disastrous effect on the provision of private rented accommodation, and so it has. The number of properties in that sector has fallen dramatically as a percentage of the total provision, and homelessness has rocketed as a result.
The Conservative Government pledged to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe. They pledged to protect tenants from high rents by means of housing benefit. All those pledges are now revealed to be as empty and dishonest as the promises to cut taxes at the last general election. There is good evidence that the people of Britain are seeing through the Conservative Government. One of my constituents was reported in my local evening paper the Cambridge Evening News as saying:
"I wish the Government would think more about the general well-being of people. I don't like living in a society where you see people having to beg on the street and hear of old people dying of hypothermia. It is so depressing thinking that everyone has to be out for themselves all the time and that if you fall down no one is going to care."
There is another item of expenditure which badly affects many people throughout the country and I was sorry not to see it dealt with in the Budget. I refer to the cash available for community care. The Secretary of State for Health is already aware of the enormous difficulties created by the underestimate of spending by social services departments in implementing Government policy—estimates, I have to say, which were forced down by the Government.
We have heard recently about social services departments which have already spent their cash allocations for the whole year. My authority in Cambridgeshire has a projected overspend of more than £1 million and has taken drastic action to reduce spending. When the Secretary of State for Health received a delegation from my Labour colleagues in Cambridgeshire county council recently, she waved aside the protests and simply told them to get their act together. That has aroused resentment and deep anger. Dedicated carers who rely on help for their elderly and disabled relatives are in despair. Hours of care have been cut, respite care is disappearing and we shall see more family breakdowns and more stress-induced illness in people who already carry an intolerable burden.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) repeated the message of the Labour Front Bench and called this the "VAT Budget". Yes, it is the VAT Budget, and that is how it will be known. It is not just that, however, as there are another seven tax increases still to come as a result of the tax increases announced last year. This is the Budget that failed to redress the evils of last year's Budget. This is not a Budget for people, but a Budget for a failing Tory Government to prepare the way for tax bribes nearer the general election.
7.39 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: May I commence by complimenting my right hon. Friends and colleagues on the production of what is, in the main, an excellent Budget? It is prudent, realistic and practical and based on the long-term interests of our nation. It is good for business, the long-term unemployed and those taxpayers at the bottom of the income tax scale. Without a doubt, it creates optimism for the future, but it is not perfect—few Budgets ever are.
I would have liked to have concentrated more on the Budget's positive aspects, but given the 10-minute rule I feel that I must concentrate on the imperfection, which is the introduction of full-scale value added tax on domestic fuel. We will suffer a lot of pain because the tax comes in five doses: a statement of intent in March 1993; approval in November last year; implementation in April; more pain at present; and implementation next year. The introduction of VAT on fuel is a bad move.
The measure is bad on several counts, including temperature gradients, and it does nothing for people in the north of Scotland. On that basis, it is unfair. It hits the elderly and the vulnerable and it certainly hits families with mortgages and young children. It also hits the lower to middle-income groups, who always seem to suffer from tax changes.
The use of domestic fuel is a matter not of choice, but of necessity. That is the factor underlying my disappointment that we have gone ahead with the second phase rise.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in March 1993, saying that I would support the 8 per cent. tranche, given the financial circumstances that the country then faced during an exceptionally long and continuing world recession. I underlined, however, that my support would not be extended to the 17.5 per cent. lift. I made that point last year, when I went into the Lobby to support the introduction of VAT at 8 per cent.
I accept that good provision has been made for pensioners and people on income support. Every time reference is made to his stated expectations of the appropriate compensation and what the Government actually provided, evidence of discomfort crosses the face of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
I welcome the moves on energy insulation and draught proofing, as well as the improvements in the cold weather allowances that were announced. I can point to constituents—pensioners in single-fuel houses—who are better off with the 70p addition, which compensated for the 8 per cent. lift. That knowledge is based on an examination of their fuel bills. On that basis, however, I still suggest that VAT on domestic fuel is a bad tax. In principle, it is bad when Governments are obliged to give with one hand and take back with the other.
I have had a sombre thought. Let us remember the community charge. I, for one, mourn its passing. People on social security were compensated for the 20 per cent. of the charge that they had to pay, but that was soon forgotten. The generous payments that are being made to pensioners and those on income support now will also soon be forgotten. They will be there in April, but then it will be summer and fuel bills will be low. By next winter, extra payments to help with VAT will have been

1399
forgotten. People will see the 17.5 per cent. VAT on their fuel bills and will not switch on their fires and heating systems. That fills me with concern.
Another aspect is the considerable amount of hype when my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out that past reductions in fuel costs, following privatisation of the energy industry, probably compensate for the additional costs resulting from the imposition of VAT. I was involved in the electricity supply industry in the run-up to privatisation. I was not terribly popular among my colleagues because I advocated privatisation. I pointed out to them the benefits that would follow for the consumer. I advocated privatisation because I thought that there would be benefits, but now those are being taken back by the Inland Revenue. I cannot support that and I will not support it when we go into the Lobby on Tuesday night.
Having said that, I have spent some considerable time in the Chamber during the debate and have listened to Opposition Members' comments. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) condemned the Government's tax takes in recent times. He stands against every element of public expenditure reduction. He has even pledged to increase public expenditure. Even the most elementary primary school arithmetic suggests that his sums do not add up. I could not possibly go into the Lobby with someone advocating those policies.
I also listened to hon. Members on the Liberal Benches who mentioned a carbon tax. Let us think back to the difficulties we had with coal only 18 months ago, when people suggested that we should do everything that we could to preserve the coal industry. A carbon tax is a tax on coal. It is a tax on fuel, the same as VAT, but more selective. Who in their right mind could go into the Lobby with individuals who advocate such a tax?
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) spoke for 40 minutes, yet he did not turn up for the winding-up speeches. He said:
"I personally look forward to the day when there is no mortgage tax relief, because I believe that it should be replaced by a housing benefit for everyone. Those in the private and public sectors should gain some support for the principle of having a roof over people's heads."—[official Report, 30 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1281.]
How can such a person advocate tax cuts and yet be prepared to put in place new taxes and levels of expenditure that are uncosted and totally unnecessary?
I will have no truck with Opposition Members on tax-related matters and I certainly will not be in the Lobby with them on Tuesday evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about VAT?"] I will not be in the Government Lobby or in the Opposition Lobby because, in the words of one Opposition Member—I think that it was the hon. Member for Garscadden—many Members will be "less than honest" if they consider the issue of raising taxes and go into the latter Lobby on Tuesday night.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) suggested that he was a "chief rebel" on the Back Benches. I have no intention of becoming a rebel. I was elected as a Conservative Member of Parliament and I will support all Conservative manifesto pledges. I do not believe that the increase in VAT was a manifesto pledge. At the last election, I argued against such taxes and feel that I cannot go the whole hog and support the Government on that issue.
1400

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor asked hon. Members who stood against the tax to come up with alternative solutions. There could be an immediate £600 million saving from the £1.5 billion VAT requirement with the removal of the requirement for plus payments.
Another option which I would suggest would be to bring the tax on wine into line with those on beer and spirits, and people in the distilling and brewing trades would certainly welcome that. We could have slowed down on our stated objectives regarding the PSBR, and there are other aspects which could also have been brought in.
I go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who said that one level of VAT which could have been introduced was VAT on national newspapers of 8 per cent. That perhaps would have been acceptable, given—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.49 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was of some interest, in that we saw him struggle with his conscience and finish up with a very boring goalless draw. He said that he would, in the end, do nothing in connection with VAT. Perhaps he will not need to be here for the debate which is to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to the situation in Northern Ireland, where he was previously a Minister. There are points from the Budget about Northern Ireland which need to be referred to. There is a great possibility of a peace dividend arising in Northern Ireland, and we must be sure that that dividend goes to Northern Ireland itself so that the problems about which the hon. Gentleman talked, including high unemployment and social deprivation, are dealt with.
I recognise that, within the public spending provisions, the adjustments downward for Northern Ireland are marginal compared with other areas. I hope that that suggests that expenditure is liable to be roughly maintained, and that that is something which will continue in the future.
Another matter regarding Northern Ireland is that hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—whatever their political complexion—will vote against VAT on domestic fuel. Some will not be doing that because of any great political conviction or analysis, which may not be very different from some of the views of the Conservative party. They will be doing it because of the overwhelming feeling which exists in Protestant and Catholic working-class communities throughout Northern Ireland. People live in bad conditions of high unemployment and deprivation, and hon. Members representing those people must respond to the pressure that is being put on them. When the vote takes place in the House, I hope that the Government will be obliged to respond to that pressure.
A major characteristic of the Budget which was praised by the hon. Member for Bridlington—and which I would want to attack strongly—is public spending cuts, and the economic and social impact which those cuts will have. There will be a £24 billion cut in the planned projections during the next three years, and the cut from 44 per cent. to 41 per cent. of national output will be covered by public spending provisions.

1401
The hon. Member for Bridlington commented on things to attack, such as overseas development. That seemed to me to be disgraceful. Some things must be done about the overseas development budget regarding the aid-trade provision, and especially the trade-arms arrangements, which exist. In overseas development, Britain falls way behind the figures which we should be aiming for, and that budget, for which hon. Members have no form of responsibility, should not be attacked in developments in the future. The overseas development budget should be increased.
The public spending cuts are in the contingency reserve, as are the provisions for local government, transport, housing and education. Scotland is added to that, but, according to the Red Book, Scotland is reflected within those other areas. How we can have such a massive reduction in the contingency reserves is of great interest, because it means that we are not prepared to move and adjust as circumstances become difficult in the future.
The major area that is attacked in the list is local government. Earlier today, we heard the statement on local government finance for England and provisions in connection with the standard spending assessment. The House may remember that, when the poll tax was initially floated and propaganda about it was simplistically put over on television in Conservative party broadcasts, we were told that 50 per cent. of moneys in different areas would come from the rate support grant, while the remainder would be divided between money raised by the poll tax—now the council tax—and money raised by the national business rate. Nothing like that exists at the moment.
In my area—North-East Derbyshire—the rate support grant is 27.5 per cent., down from the projected 50 per cent. figure. That means that the difference must be picked up considerably elsewhere, and it will be picked up considerably by the national business rate. There is supposed to be concern among Government Members about burdens on industry, but the burden of the national business rate needs careful examination. There is also a tremendous burden which comes in terms of council tax payments.
North-East Derbyshire is by no means an area of easy employment or of a massive development of middle-class culture and provisions. It includes areas such as Clay Cross, Holmewood, Barrow Hill and Renishaw, which have very high levels of unemployment, but the council finishes up—in terms of money which it gets per head of population or per council tax payer—way down at the bottom of the list of grants provided. In fact, two years before last year's adjustment in the methodology of the SSA, North-East Derbyshire was ranked at 295 out of 296 councils in England and Wales. There can be no justification for that.
The only council beneath us was East Dorset, which is a well-heeled area in comparison with North-East Derbyshire. We know what was wrong with the methodology, including some things which were wrong in terms of the ages and social mix. A slight improvement took place last year, and North-East Derbyshire moved up from 295 to 275—it felt like the relief of Mafeking—although no money came back for the money that had been lost in the past. The council was still in a disastrous position when compared with many others.
1402
There are massive problems in local government finance, which requires redistribution. Until the figures are analysed, we cannot be sure whether the new provision changes the position of North-East Derbyshire. As there is to be no change in the methodology of SSAs—apart from the police, which is outside the control of the district council—it looks as if we will finish up very much in the same position.
The fiddle essentially operates in terms of the enhanced population figure which is to used calculate grants, and which is then multiplied into every other grant that councils can get. In North-East Derbyshire, the enhanced population is in fact a reduced population, because its daytime population is much smaller than the population who live there and who need services and provisions. People who are lucky enough to have jobs go to Sheffield and Chesterfield. When the pits were there, people used to go to Markham and Bolsover in neighbouring areas and, because of this, our area faces massive problems.
The points which I have illustrated merely in terms of local government could be added to if we talked about other areas which have been cut from the projected figures. Education is to be cut. How on earth will we ever get a society in which people have potential and the skills they need to take upon themselves the opportunities and jobs which should grow in the hi-tech economy if we are scraping around in connection with educational provision?
If I had more time, I would mention the other expenditure headings. I wanted to mention the other side of the coin to public spending, public finance. The details contained on page 11 of the Red Book reveal where the resources come from to meet the declining commitments of the Government. One of the interesting comparisons is that between the sums raised by income tax, VAT and excise duty. For the first time, the money raised through VAT and excise duties is greater than that raised through income tax. That reveals the unjust and unfair nature of our society.
7.59 pm
Sir Peter Fry: I will not pursue the arguments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but I too have great reservations about the way in which local government finance is calculated.
Although many aspects of this year's Budget deserve applause, it should be judged by other criteria besides its effects upon the economy. As I am not an economist, accountant or merchant banker, it is the social and political background against which the Budget has been presented which is of the greatest interest to me.
The further progress towards economic recovery is welcome. The Chancellor, apart from putting a further dent in consumer confidence, particularly in the housing market, has done what he can to ensure that that recovery continues. The diversion of resources to help the long-term unemployed into jobs and out of long-term dependency on state benefits must make sense. The introduction of transitional relief, which will help many businesses that face rate increases as a result of the latest revaluation, is of considerable help. I must strike a discordant note from the Conservative Benches, however, by saying that, frankly, a number of other aspects of the Budget lead me to understand that many in the country are not as enthusiastic about it as some of my parliamentary colleagues are.

1403
I can understand people who say that, if our economic recovery is so marked and the forecasts for the future are as good as is claimed, why is it that they, too, cannot share in that national recovery. After all, they are the ones who have suffered most in the past couple of years.
Let me make it clear that I am not asking for any massive tax handouts, or even for tax cuts. If we are doing so well after the tax increases imposed at last year's levels of taxation, why is it so necessary to impose further tax increases in 1995 and 1996? Is it absolutely necessary to turn the screw of direct taxation even further this April? That is the question that my constituents ask. No one is claiming that there is a feel-good factor. If it ever is produced, it will probably be due to the fact that the economy is overheating, so we will have to put the brakes on it again. People are entitled, however, to ask, at long last, whether we cannot have a not-feel-so-bad factor.
There is little in the Budget to encourage most people to believe that the next 12 months will be any easier for them than the preceding ones. I do not believe in massive handouts, but my party, which prides itself on being the party of the family and home ownership, could have avoided further reductions in the value of the married man's allowance and in mortgage relief. In the latter case, that new policy, which will reduce the help to those who become unemployed and who have a mortgage, will hurt a number of people. If we expect them to pay for extra insurance, surely we could have left them some of their tax relief so that they could afford to take out that insurance.
Last year, I withheld my vote on VAT on fuel until I was assured that a package of help would be available to pensioners and those on income support. When that was provided, I promised to support the Government. I shall keep my word next Tuesday. I am conscious, however, of the many people who are just above the income support level, who would find it much easier to bear the full 17.5 per cent. VAT rate if their tax allowances were not cut in April.
One of the most disturbing features of the past year has been the activities of the over-greedy directors, particularly those of former public utilities, such as the water companies and British Gas. Many people, particularly supporters of the Conservative party, are absolutely sick and tired of having to put up with annual pay increases of 2 or 3 per cent. when all that the Government seem to be able to do is wring their hands when some companies pay their directors enormously more.
I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor lost an opportunity in the Budget at least to put down a marker that the Government would act if such payments continued. Those pay increases give the wrong message to the vast majority of people. I have yet to see that queue of American or foreign companies which is supposedly waiting to recruit those directors at such highly inflated salaries. We should have imposed a higher rate of tax on those high salaries or done something to the share option schemes, which have enabled many directors to become millionaires in a short time.
Another element of the Budget is its part in the continuing and disappointing attack on the road user. Despite the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, it is clear that petrol duty would have to be increased massively to make much difference to car ownership. The extra duty is merely extra income for the Treasury. That duty will not deter people from using
1404
their cars, but will just make it more expensive for most people to get to work, to take their children to school and to make other essential journeys.
It is equally important to consider the effect of that increased duty on the road haulage industry. Its costs will go up by 1.5 per cent. as a result, while its overall profit levels have dropped to just 3 per cent. The only consequence of that increased duty is that its cost will be fed straight through into industrial costs, which will be paid for by the consumer.
This year's increase in duty comes on top of last year's increase, which made our duty on DERV the highest in the European Union. As a result of Budget changes, we also have the highest rate of vehicle excise duty for the heaviest lorries. I must point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that our industry depends upon road transport to get its goods into markets. Other countries in the Union have realised that and have adjusted some of their tax rates accordingly.
The further burdens on the road user and the cuts in the road building programme are not helpful towards the more efficient running of our economy. Even if we succeeded in applying all the recommendations contained in the report by the royal commission, traffic levels would still increased massively, as would road congestion; the cost of travelling by road would go through the roof.
This afternoon's statement on local government finance is another area where an opportunity has been lost. I do not want to talk too much about that now, because I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during our debates on that subject later in the year. Suffice it to say that I believe that my county will be adversely affected. I give due warning that at the moment I can see no way in which I could go through the Lobby in support of the grant when it comes before the House for approval later in the Session.
Looking at the Budget as a whole, I have a feeling that an opportunity has been lost, because although the economy is recovering and we have been told that the news is good, the evidence provided by Opposition Members and in the columns in the newspapers suggests that the Government's confidence and happiness is certainly not being shared by our fellow citizens.
I will vote for the Budget resolutions because I believe that the Government have acted correctly in concentrating on economic considerations. I will not do so with a great feeling of happiness or satisfaction. I detect that my reaction to the Budget is shared by many people. After coming out of a deep and distressing recession, we need something to lift our spirits. The people who support our party need their spirits lifted; dare I say it, there are moments when I need my own lifted, in the present circumstances.
I very much regret that the Chancellor was unable to provide the type of help that we would like. I end on this note: there is a danger that, if we continue effectively to hurt people by taxation that is too high, with a promise of jam tomorrow, first we are not sure—one never can be sure—that the jam will arrive, and, secondly, I do not believe that people will necessarily agree that it is better for teachers to be made redundant in 1995 than to have a slightly bigger tax cut in 1996 or 1997.
My hon. Friends must address themselves to that issue. I hope that they have got it right, but, if they have got it wrong, the results will be disastrous.
8.9 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: Many of us in the House have seen Budgets come and go. The Chancellor of the day makes his speech to wild cries of "Hear, hear" amid the waving of Order Papers, but, once the small print has been read, what a different story it all becomes.
Give this Budget a month, and the only thing that people will remember is the disgraceful increase in VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. I attended a public meeting in my constituency last evening, and everyone wanted to ask about that increase on fuel. It will cause many problems for the Government, and rightly so.
The Government have not listened. They have shown no sympathy, no understanding of the opinions of the general public. However, all hon. Members know, on whatever side of the House we sit, how difficult it will be for people if we have a hard winter. We know what the needs will be of the elderly and disabled and of those with young children, who need to keep their homes warm.
I have to tell the Minister that the supposed extra payment is already being laughed at. Help the Aged has already said:
"The compensation does not make up for the VAT rise. Old people often find themselves choosing between eating and heating."
What an appalling indictment of a Government who have been in power for 15 years that, according to an organisation represented by Members on both sides of the House, elderly people must choose between keeping warm or keeping fed.
At the meeting that I attended last evening—a public meeting, not a party meeting—the utter contempt for the Government and their policies was quickly and clearly shown. The Government will pay dearly for their action on VAT, as they will soon learn at the forthcoming Dudley, West by-election.
Throughout the country, housing is a major problem, be it in large cities, smaller towns or rural areas. Alongside unemployment it is the No. 1 issue but, as other hon. Members have said, nothing in the Budget encourages a house-building programme. No one can dispute the need for it. No one can say, "Yes, we would like to do it, but where will we get the money?" We know that billions of pounds are being held by local authorities throughout the country, as a result of the sale of council properties, which could be used in such a programme; and we all know—whatever may be the supposed rules that govern the spending of that money—that, if the Government wanted it to be spent on that aspect, those rules could be changed in a matter of days. Every single one of us knows that, and we know how widely supported such a change of policy would be.
Hon. Members, whatever party we belong to, receive report after report from housing associations and from groups involved with housing, which clearly outline the need for major house-building and major house improvements throughout the country. Why do the Government ignore those reports? I ask the Minister: how many properties will be built this year by local authorities or housing associations and how many by private developers? What will the yearly figures be for housing construction?
We all know that the housing construction sector of the United Kingdom should be playing a major overall role in the economic life of the country, and the number of workers that it could employ, who now have to be paid
1406
benefit because of their false unemployment. Vast sums could be saved. Many sectors that supply materials have an automatic spin-off in creating other jobs that would take people out of the unemployment problems that, sadly, confront so many people throughout the country.
As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), said, the Budget and the Government have ignored many of the key issues that they had an opportunity to tackle. They could and should have been tackled but, sadly, they were not. Against the background of what the Budget could have done, but did not do, and what, sadly, it did do—the disgraceful increase of VAT to 17.5 per cent.—no wonder the Government are so scared of facing the electorate.
8.16 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: This morning, when I looked at my mail, I found a Budget commentary from the Trustee Savings bank. It summed up its opinion of the Budget as follows:
"On reflection, this was probably a good Budget and entirely appropriate for the current economic circumstances. It should create a climate of stability which is necessary for long-term sustainable recovery."
I entirely agree with those sentiments, and I very much welcome the Budget as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The background is truly remarkable. We have low inflation, we have manufacturing growth and productivity at record levels and of course we have an export boom. However, in the past few weeks, in what has been something of a feeding frenzy by the media, everything has been concentrated on the negative. Unless, in the Budget, something fresh and exciting in their terms was produced, they tended to dismiss it.
I shall therefore examine what is happening in the real world, in my constituency. My constituency is still substantially agriculture-based. It is one of the prime cereal-producing areas of the country. When I went to the Royal Smithfield show a few days ago, the transformation in that sector was obvious for all to see. Skill and innovation in agricultural machinery is making that entire sector of the British economy dynamic. Britain exports more tractors, for example, than any other country in the European Union.
In Newmarket, the bloodstock industry is in very considerable recovery. It is one of the main employers in East Anglia. Prices of bloodstock are increasing and employment is returning to that vital part of the employment picture in my constituency.
Small family businesses are the lifeblood of west Suffolk. We are witnessing considerable improvement and optimism, as manifested in the fact that there are many new shops in the towns of Newmarket and Bury St. Edmunds—the main two towns in my constituency. Over the past 18 months, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by a third, and in Bury St. Edmunds it is under 5 per cent.
Budgets address great macro-economic cycles and look at the big picture. But of course economics is about real people and employment and decent living standards. Such conditions are manifestly coming to pass in my constituency. I applaud the aim at the heart of the Budget, which is to continue to reduce debt. That is being done in a way that makes us unique among our European competitors.

1407
An extraordinary feature of the economic recovery and one of its main elements is the exceptional export performance. The Budget reinforces what is essentially an export-led recovery. Low corporate taxation and the low social cost of employment give Britain a unique competitive position compared with the rest of Europe. We are a trading nation par excellence, and we export more per capita than even the Japanese.
Every time since the war that Britain has had an economic recovery as powerful as the current one, there has been a balance of payments crisis, but this time precisely the reverse is the case. Like a record that is stuck in a groove, the Opposition launch totally misplaced attacks on manufacturing industry. It is true that some old industries have disappeared, but new ones are developing and many of them are based on high technology. Britain is in a virtuous circle brought about by low interest rates, moderate wage settlements and cost control. All that has been helped by the Budget.
In the past three months, export volumes have risen by nearly 3 per cent. This year, exports to the Pacific rim countries and Latin America have gone up by a third. It is significant that much of that export success and employment is being created by the former nationalised industries. Those industries, which were once such a huge drain on the British taxpayer, are now at the forefront of teaching the rest of the world how to privatise and are role models of how to operate. People from many countries visit Britain to see those ptivatised companies whose export success is extremely noteworthy. While Labour continues to thrash around looking at and debating clause 4, we are getting on with an export drive that is based on new technologies developed in Britain.
In the past, recoveries have been based on a soufflé-like property boom. That is no more, because the current recovery is based on exports and investment, and everything flows, from that. Britain is a world leader in industries such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The business-friendly environment that the Budget has projected opens further export possibilities, and business success and employment will flow from that. By cutting the PSBR, the Budget ensures that interest rates will remain low. Sound money and stable finances are the routes to business success and continuing employment.
I welcome the additional boost to exports provided by the cut of some 10 per cent. in the export credits guarantee insurance scheme. That is a logical extension of our trade promotion efforts. In countries such as India and South Africa, where we have strong and historic commercial ties, the cut will give our business men the chance to create welcome export opportunities. I hope that, instead of what has gone on so remorselessly in the past, our balance of payments in future will be permanently in the black, and will be based on the competitiveness that the Budget will effectively help to bring about.
I am privileged to be the vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau. For many years, we have tried to put ideas to the Chancellor about how to improve the lot of small businesses. Therefore, I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to raise the VAT registration threshold, the transitional business rates relief scheme and quarterly VAT payments.
Another helpful feature is the review of procedures for insolvent companies. Every hon. Member knows of constituents who have had their businesses taken away
1408
from them during the recession, perhaps by the too quick action of the banks. The Budget proposes a 28-day period during which banks, creditors and business men can sit down together to try to work out a scheme to ensure that small businesses under threat can survive. That will prove to be one of the most significant and constructive innovations in the Budget.
I spoke about our propensity in the past to go for bricks and mortar. I welcome the fact that next year the tax concession on mortgage relief will be reduced to 15 per cent. I hope that that concession will eventually be phased out. I should like to fly a kite for the future. In his reforms, Lord Lawson of Blaby introduced a capital gains tax rate of 40 per cent. In an era of low inflation, that needs to be looked at again. Although indexation has proved helpful, Britain is now in a different inflation scenario. I hope that capital gains tax will be phased out and that people in private companies will not have to pay any capital gains tax on their shares in unquoted stock.
The Budget is a watershed. Every Chancellor is tempted to court short-term popularity. There have been a number of important policy innovations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
8.26 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: Much has been made by the Government and Conservative Members of Britain's improving economy. The Chancellor wallows in self-congratulation about that, but no credit whatever is due to the Government for our present situation. It came about because of the utter destruction on 16 September 1992 of the Government's centrepiece of economic policy. On that date, the pound was forced out of the ERM and there was an enforced and humiliating devaluation.
It is even more annoying that the Government persist in claiming credit for our economy when we realise that they spent approximately £15 billion of our contingency reserves in an afternoon to try to avoid the situation that preceded the recovery.
There are two Conservative parties in the House, and we are debating two Budgets. This is not the package of broadly neutral measures that has been reported in the newspapers, because the Budget contains the second tranche of tax increases, of which the increase in VAT on fuel from 8 to 17.5 per cent. is but one example. Those measures were put in place by the last Budget, and over the past two years taxation has increased by 7p in the pound. That increase has been made by a Government whose election pledge was to cut taxes. We shall keep reminding them of that.
The Secretary of State for Employment cuts an interesting figure at the Dispatch Box. I am sorry that he is not in his place. We all know that he has leadership ambitions. I recently looked at a book in which Oliver Cromwell described leadership. He wrote:
"None climbs so high as he who knows not whither he is going."
That is bad news for the right hon. Gentleman, who has made it all too clear whither he thinks he should be going. He has probably planned it on the back of an envelope in the same way as his rival, the President of the Board of Trade.
We all know that the only job-creation scheme in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested is one that will put him into No. 10. He glories in being the darling of the Thatcherites. We are told that he is the heir apparent and

1409
that stalking horses are having to wait in the stables until next year when he has a little more experience. We look forward to seeing what happens when the time comes.
I was intrigued with the Cabinet reshuffle that landed the right hon. Gentleman with his current responsibilities. To put him in charge of a spending Department is rather like putting the wolf in charge of grandmother's community care programme. We know that it will devour the poor woman before Little Red Riding Hood even has the chance to rescue her. The expenditure plans outlined in the Red Book for the right hon. Gentleman's Department show us how true that is. He tells us that he can deliver better help for the unemployed and better training with reduced resources.
The right hon. Gentleman has enthusiastically taken an axe to his own Department because he does not believe in government. So anti-interventionist is he that, had he been present at the creation, he would have instructed God not to disturb the chaos. I expect that one day he will tell us that he was indeed present at the creation, and I look forward to that announcement.
We are left with a Secretary of State for Employment who is happy to hand over half of his Department's responsibilities to the Secretary of State for Social Security and to deny that the Government have any responsibility for the remainder. He will have to be careful or he will talk himself out of a job. I have to tell him that millions of his fellow citizens who are unemployed would enjoy that joke at his expense. They certainly do not expect any meaningful support from him.
We must look in detail at the measures in the Budget to help the unemployed. After all, that was one of the three priorities that the Chancellor set out. The proposals are pathetically inadequate. The package of work incentives will Cost £680 million, but the incentive to employers to take on the long-term unemployed will cost only £45 million—and it does not start until April 1996.
Extended workstart pilots, the third tranche of pilots in this scheme, will cost a mere £8 million. Set against either the £25 billion annual cost of keeping the unemployed on the dole or the £10 billion extra gross domestic product growth that we have had this year, such minuscule resources show not priority, but the cruel neglect and indifference that has always characterised the Government's attitude to unemployment and those who become the victims of it. Why wait until 1996 to start those schemes? Why not extend them to those who have been unemployed for a year rather than two years? Why not have more generous subsidies?
On the one side there are to be cuts in capital spending that could lose up to 250,000 jobs from both the civil service and the public sector, but on the other there is a raft of supply side tinkering at the edges to compensate. It is not good enough to say that that characterises a Budget for jobs.
Particularly worrying is the aspect of the Budget that caps housing benefit and puts new restrictions on home owners who become unemployed. Both those cuts are extremely cruel and will lead to people in my constituency being made homeless, to increased indebtedness and to increased repossessions. We are storing up a position of difficulty, misery and insecurity in our economy that does not reflect the changes in the labour market, where we
1410
want to move to more flexible jobs and a more flexible attitude. How can we do that when we are threatening the unemployed with losing their homes as well as their jobs? It is draconian, inhuman and cruel, and the policy will have to be re-examined.
There has been much talk about the lack of the feel-good factor. The Maples memorandum contained some interesting titbits for us and some advice for the Government. Did the Chancellor follow that advice in his Budget? The memorandum punctured the virtual reality world that is inhabited by the Cabinet and most of the Tory party. It talked of
"a feeling of powerlessness and insecurity about jobs, housing and the NHS."
Did the Chancellor do anything about that? No, instead he increased job insecurity and the fear of people losing their homes if they lose their jobs.
The memorandum said:
"The reality is that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest who are getting poorer."
Again, that is true, but what did the Chancellor do about it? He did very little. There has been no taxation of executive share options to deal with the obscenely huge pay increases that the chairmen of public utilities are paying themselves. There has been no postponement of the second rise in VAT from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Both of those measures were suggested in the Maples memorandum but ignored by the Chancellor.
The memorandum also said:
"Few people think we are out of recession."
That is true, yet this Budget cuts living standards by £2.40 a week through tax increases. It said, "Privatisation is unpopular". The Government have speeded up the sale of Railtrack so that they can store up tax cuts.
The Budget is far more about jostling for the Tory party leadership and saving up money for pre-election bribes than about tackling the real and serious problems in our economy.
8.35 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: This is a cynical Budget from a highly cynical Chancellor. Instead of robbing the Peter of public services to pay the Paul of future election tax cut bribes, it would have been better had he launched a national debate on public revenue and public expenditure. Our taxation system is very much out of kilter with modern economies. We have had the absurd sight of the Chancellor making three major speeches in as many days, and I expect that we will not see him again for another six or seven months—unless, of course, he succeeds in his ambition to move sideways from No. 11 Downing street.
Ideas need to be raised in a Budget debate beyond the individual proposals that will be debated strenuously in the Finance Bill Committee. With Gosplan dead, the Treasury remains the most centralised finance and planning Ministry in the world. Perhaps it was suited to running an empire in the days of a sterling area protected from any other trade, but it is not suited to running a modern European economy. That is especially true when the briefing that it gives the Chancellor is so wholly inaccurate.
The Chancellor was in remarkably Panglossian mode on Tuesday—all is well in the best of all possible worlds, he smugly implied. He boasted that our growth was the

1411
highest in the world, while at the same time announcing on page 17 of the Red Book that growth would actually decline next year. He is right to do so, because the mantras about British growth are about to turn into dirges. Gross domestic product growth figures for the latest three months show that it has been stronger in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Austria, just to name European Union countries.
The Financial Times informed us today that Australia, now benefiting from its 12th year under a Labour Government, has an annual growth of 6.4 per cent., so Britain is the record breaker neither on growth nor on unemployment, which is lower in West Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria. It is higher in France and Italy, both of which are under right-wing Governments, and in Spain, where Mr. Gonzalez proudly proclaims himself a Thatcherist.
In one area the United Kingdom does outstrip Europe—in wages and earnings, which have risen in the past 12 months at a higher rate than in all our competitor countries of a roughly equivalent size. The Chancellor has a policy for pay—to him that hath much shall be given; to him that hath less shall be taken away. Although the rate of pay rises outstrips our European competitors—leading to, as was suggested in the Red Book, a rising level of inflation next year and the interest rate rise the Chancellor will have to impose in consequence—the actual take-home pay of British workers remains among the lowest in advanced countries.
That was acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Social Security who, in a lecture some two weeks ago, said:
"probably the single most significant social change affecting the UK … is not the ageing of the population. Nor the breakdown of the family. Nor the increasing proportion of women at work. Rather, it is a phenomenon which is still largely unrecognised: the growing dispersion of earnings power."
That is extraordinary language from a Minister who has loyally backed measure after measure to increase the earnings gap.
Again today, as in Employment questions on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Employment said that the UK has the highest take-home pay in Europe—higher than France, Italy and Denmark. I gather that parliamentary convention does not allow one to refer to lies, whoppers or "Portillo porkies" so, to remain within the rules, I shall describe that as a statistical inexactitude. Who does the Secretary of State think that he is kidding? It is certainly not other Government agencies which place adverts around Europe offering Britain as a low-wage country. The time has come to nail this untruth—not a killer fact, but a killer fib.
Here are the facts from that well-known repository of socialist information, the Union Bank of Switzerland. Its 1994 survey of prices and earnings around the globe shows net hourly wages in London to be £4.70, in Copenhagen, £7.80, in Paris, £5.60, in Milan, £4.80 and in Taipei, £8.20.
It is necessary to nail the lie that Britain is on its way to becoming a high-pay nation. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment for the tables that he placed in the Library this week in response to a question of mine. In particular, they show how badly my constituents in Rotherham and in South Yorkshire generally suffer.
1412
According to those tables, one third of all men in full-time work in Yorkshire and Humberside earn no more than £208 a week, which is below the European level of a decent living wage. Unbelievably, nearly 10 per cent. earn only £150 a week—not enough to pay for a case of champagne at the Alexandra palace gathering of Europhobes, right-wing nutters and Sunday Telegraph leader writers called to celebrate the 10 years in Parliament of the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), the Secretary of State for unemployment. Those are gross, not take-home, earnings.
The situation is even worse for part-time workers. The tables placed in the Library this week show that four out of five part-time employees in South Yorkshire earn £5.50 an hour or less. More than one third earn £3.50 or less an hour, giving them take-home pay of about one tenth the going rate for a Tory parliamentary question.
This is the low-wage, poverty Britain that has been created as a matter of deliberate policy by the new two-nation Conservative party. More than 100 years ago, Benjamin Disraeli legislated for the 56-hour week. Two or three weeks ago in the last Session I heard the Minister for Energy and Industry boasting about visiting a factory where people worked 60 hours a week. One of the reasons for that is the massive cut in training and skills investment, not one bit of which has been put right in the Budget. Training has been cut in real terms by 35 per cent. in the past four years, leading, within what is a mini-boom, to inevitable skills shortages and skills bottlenecks.
In January 1994, the CBI reported that the lack of skilled labour affected only 5 per cent. of its firms. By October this year, nearly three times as many firms were reporting skills shortages. The firms reporting the biggest concerns about the shortage of skilled labour were those employing up to 500 employees—the crucial family firms which have been ignored in the Government's hostility to effective regional and industrial policy that could support such companies. That lack of regional policy means that since 1985 less than 7 per cent. of inward investment in Britain has gone to Yorkshire compared with 30 per cent. that has gone to the south-east and the west midlands, home of Tory Members of Parliament and the margin als that they must win.
The Budget lacks any real help for industry and rejects most of the proposals put forward by the CBI, which is why Howard Davies, the director general, is unhappy about it. It rejects everything put forward by the TUC. Again, it is a Budget for the rich drawn up at the Ritz. It does not address the need to overcome the two-nation Britain in which we live in order to forge again a one-nation country with effective regions with a share of resources and with the ability to grow together.
8.45 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget by stating that he intended to pursue three priorities. He wished to promote sustainable growth, strengthen the economy in the long term and prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass. One of the many indictments of the Chancellor's proposals is that much of his Budget runs completely counter to his stated objectives.
When historians reflect on the Chancellor's record, they will see that he has simply followed in the footsteps of his predecessors. Once again, we see political expediency

1413
put before the public interest. A Budget that should have been about nurturing the fortunes of the British economy was in fact about reviving the fortunes of the Conservative party.
The Budget does little to encourage sustained growth. It seeks instead to encourage a pre-election consumer boom with 5p off income tax in a year's time—pure, traditional, orthodox Tory boom and bust economics; boom in the hope that they can con the voters and then bust for the rest of us when the election is over. But this time it is one con too far and it is doomed to fail.
The British people will not forget the dismal record of broken promises and broken confidences that are now the hallmark of the Conservative party. The Budget will be remembered not just for the broken promises but for its failure to grasp the opportunities available to us—an opportunity lost to build sustained growth and strengthen the economy.
As we finally come out of the long years of recession, employers are already complaining about skill shortages. Britain lies 18th out of 23 in the world skills league. The Government's response is to slash still further the training budget. Of course we are interested in output, but we cannot achieve output without any input. That is short-sighted nonsense. How on earth can the Chancellor claim that this is a Budget for the long term when he is cutting the essential investment in skills and training for our future? We need increased investment in training the work force. The Chancellor is following the example set by his predecessors—total neglect of our training needs.
The Chancellor's rhetoric suggests that he has learnt from past errors. However, his actions tell a different story. Until the words and deeds match, the verdict of the British people will remain the same.
Government have a responsibility to create an environment in which enterprise can flourish. Yet one area facing massive cuts is the capital investment budget. Current levels of capital spending are already too low to keep pace with the need to maintain and renew our existing assets. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to look at the crumbling and decaying state of social housing, schools and transport in their own constituencies. Where is the investment just to conserve that which exists, let alone to build for the future?
I am told that a little extra money for capital spending on schools is hidden in the education budget, but even £100 million will make hardly a dent in the problem after 15 years of neglect. At current spending of about £1 billion on capital and education, it will take 60 years just to renew, maintain and repair those assets. The sum of £100 million is a drop in the ocean.
Capital investment would provide not only a modern, strong infrastructure but ensure jobs for the thousands of construction workers abandoned by the Government, who know that their plans for capital investment are grossly inadequate. That is why they set such store by reviving the private finance initiative. Although we require the resources of the whole community—public, private and voluntary—to deal with the problems and we want to encourage private investment for public good, experience of the PFI so far has not been good. Only £500 million has been raised, and even successful initiatives have been slow and costly.
1414
The private sector is not the alternative state. The Government should not and cannot pass the buck for its responsibilities to the private sector. The public sector must lead the partnership and facilitate private investment. The Government are driven by dogma—for them, all that is public is bad, and all that is private is good. That dogma prevents the development of effective partnerships which could deliver essential capital investment in the infrastructure. If the Government were less dogmatic and more pragmatic, they would examine afresh definitions of the nature of capital investment, which should be counted against the PSBR. A positive approach is needed to ensure more capital investment in state schools.
Britain has the smallest social housing programme since the second world war, with £5 billion locked up in housing capital receipts. That money could be used to build more homes, repair existing properties and get thousands of building workers back to work. Those resources were unlocked last year, but not this year. The failure to act demonstrates the triumph of political dogma over common sense. The victims of that dogma are the homeless and the unemployed.
Cutting housing benefit is one of the Budget's most insidious aspects. The exploding cost of that benefit is the inevitable result of Government action in deregulating the private sector and forcing up council and housing association rents—a 79 per cent. increase in the past five years. The Chancellor intends to regulate by the back door, by capping housing benefit—a dishonest, inefficient and unfair mechanism. The homeless will again be made the scapegoats of Government failure.
Has the Chancellor met his stated priority of preventing the emergence of a deprived underclass? The Government's deliberate actions and policies led to the emergence of that underclass. Of course we welcome proposals to bring some long-term unemployed back to work, and we are delighted that the Chancellor has adopted ideas developed by Opposition Members—but that is too little, too late, to undo the effects of 16 years of deliberate Government policy.
Taking housing costs, taxes, benefits and wages together, the poorest 30 per cent. of the population have suffered a cut in real income of 2.5 per cent. since 1979, while the richest 10 per cent. have seen a rise in real income of 62 per cent. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, under Government tax plans of the last decade, the richest 10 per cent. of the population are £30 a week better off, while the poorest 10 per cent. are £3 a week worse off. That is why there is an underclass.
This year's Budget proposes cuts in housing and incapacity benefits, a job seeker's allowance, less good quality housing, a two-tier health service, and a lack of training and education services. It also reflects growing crime and fear of crime. Action is needed in the Budget to restore social cohesion and to undo the social divisions that the Government have created.
In 1972, the former Prime Minister promised a nursery place for every three and four-year-old. A generation later, the current Prime Minister pledged at this year's Tory party conference that there will be education for all four-year-olds—but there was no mention of that pledge in the Budget. It is not a question of more money, but of choices and of how money should be used. The Government are spending £780 million on consultants to privatise British Rail. That money could meet the cost of the proposals that the Prime Minister put to the

1415
Conservative party conference. It could have been spent on our children, which would have strengthened the economy in the long term and prevented the emergence of an underclass.
The Chancellor has failed his own test. He has failed to meet the priorities that he set himself, and he will fail also with his real priority—that of saving this wretched, divided Government. The British people's first opportunity to give their verdict on the Budget will come in Dudley, West in a fortnight, and I have every confidence that Labour will win.
8.55 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his excellent speech. We share the honour of having been born in the same town of Rutherglen. I admit to disagreeing with one of his comments about the Secretary of State for Employment. I happen to like Sunday Telegraph editorials. They do an excellent demolition job on the Government—the more so because they both come from the same camp.
The landfill tax is a small step by the Government to making sure that industry and local authorities face up to the fact that landfill is not the only answer to waste disposal. There is another side to that coin. Glasgow district council is proposing to implement a large landfill site just beyond my constituency, across the East Kilbride boundary. Part of the pressure on the council stems from cuts in Government support grants to local authorities in Scotland.
Although I welcome the landfill tax as a disincentive for local authorities to continue using landfill ad infinitum, they are pressured by lack of grants. I hope that Glasgow district council realises that with the landfill tax it will cost the public more in the long run to go ahead with such sites. In the light of the Budget, I shall be calling on Glasgow district council to withdraw its proposal for a landfill site at South Cathkin.
I resent the continual attack on the motorist and the attempts by the Conservative party to portray the Labour party as the enemy of the car and the car user. That is certainly not the case. I recall many of the points made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). It is not enough to have the continual increases on petrol, fuel, DERV and the road tax in isolation from other measures to make road traffic flow more smoothly and to prevent traffic jams and without alternative policies. It is clearly a tax-raising move by the Government.
The same applies to the arbitrary cutting off of the amount of money for road-building schemes. I am not particularly in favour of roads all over the place, but there is a reasonable case for considering them where they are necessary. In my constituency, again, a motorway has been planned and most of it has been built except the last section—the proposed M24 extension. If that section is not completed, Cambuslang and Rutherglen main streets will continue to suffer traffic jams, with all the safety and health risks inherent in them. If there is a sensible road plan, it is common sense to go ahead with it. I have no dogma one way or the other for or against roads, but common sense must come into it.
The same applies to the Government's attitude to rail travel. Although they are maintaining the level of support for the railways in the next financial year at £975 million, they intend to reduce it to £740 million. That will start a
1416
downward curve in support for the railways, not only for Scotland but for the whole west coast main line, which needs investment and Government support to ensure that railways operate as an incentive and alternative to road travel.
I regret that the Chancellor failed to address one of the most serious problems facing small businesses—the late payment of debt. Small businesses have lobbied long and hard. That problem is particularly hard for them to bear, yet the Government continue to ignore their pleas for help. I received a communication from the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, Earl Ferrers, indicating that it would be too complicated to introduce a scheme to deal solely with small businesses and the problems that they face of late payment of debt. I take the point of view that, if there is a will, there is a way. If one were to contrast the sort of "giving up before you start" attitude to the Government's complicated measures to "encourage" people who are unemployed to seek work, one would see that the same ingenuity applied to the late payment of debt could achieve a solution.
I come now to the Secretary of State's comments about the lack of a social chapter in Britain being an incentive for companies to come into the United Kingdom. The Hoover company has a factory in Cambuslang in my constituency. An investment programme resulted in the transfer of work from a factory in France to the Cambuslang factory. I specifically asked for, and was given, public assurances from the company that the lack of a social chapter in Britain played absolutely no part in its decision to bring those extra jobs to Cambuslang. It was purely and simply because of the good industrial relations, the good investment record of the factory and the investment prospects in the west of Scotland—and, to be fair, the support from the Scottish Office. That shows that the lack of a social chapter did not encourage Hoover to bring those jobs to Cambuslang.
Although the Secretary of State for Employment is not here—I am sure that he will be told about or read about this—I will remind him of what he says about the Tory urge to cut taxes. I remember being on the Committee which considered the council tax, where the Secretary of State was piloting the Bill. One of his ideas, if I recall correctly, was about evaluators surveying properties to ensure that they had got the assessments right. He floated—that is the correct word—the idea of hot air balloons, which would float over the back gardens of the terraced houses so that the evaluators could see whether any improvements had been made. So the Secretary of State's credibility has quite a long way to go.
I make no apology for dealing now with VAT, because Labour Members have rightly mentioned it. Some hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have mentioned at, too. The Paymaster General said that we are the only country in Europe without some kind of similar tax. I think that he quoted Norway. To make such a comparison without taking into account the whole taxation and social security system in that country is invalid.
My constituency, which includes Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen, has a large elderly population. One council ward in particular, Bankhead, has a high proportion of elderly people, and also many mothers with young children, who will use electricity and gas more than the average. Those people will suffer as a result of the Government's insistence on imposing the full rate of VAT in April.

1417
That, in my view, completely destroys the Government's pretence to be the party of low taxation. Over the past few years their record has been a disgrace, and they know it. They are shaking in their boots, and come the general election—indeed, come the by-election at Dudley, West—they will pay the price.
9.4 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I wish to discuss the cross-channel movement of alcohol. Let me declare an interest, as a sponsored member of the GMB union: I believe that many of its members' jobs are threatened by that trade, in breweries, clubs, pubs and other parts of the industry.
When the single market was introduced on 1 January 1993, it was acknowledged that various countries in the European Union could set their own levels of duty. It was also acknowledged by those who were involved in discussions at the time that it would consequently be possible to transfer certain commodities from one country to another when it was advantageous to do so. There is, indeed, a regular trade among the mainland European Union countries in a number of items: the Danish Government, for instance, were at one point concerned about some of the movement between Germany and Denmark, and took steps to bring their taxation regime more into line with Germany's.
In Britain, it has been recognised that there are dramatic differences between the duty paid on alcohol and cigarettes here and that paid in many other European Union countries. At the time of the discussions to which I referred, it was acknowledged that some seepage was inevitable and that people would take advantage of the lower duty levels in, for example, France. They would be able to shop in France and, when it was possible to transport the products that they bought, they would bring them back to the United Kingdom.
Cross-channel movement of alcohol now presents a serious problem, however. Now we are dealing not merely with Mr. and Mrs. Smith from Melton Mowbray, who go on a day bus trip to Calais and bring back a few cans of beer and a bottle of wine—although that possibly constitutes up to half the cross-channel traffic in alcohol on which duty is paid in France. That picture will no longer be typical; there has now been a move into organised smuggling, which will seriously threaten many business men whose livelihoods depend on their business.
In 1993, the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association appointed independent consultants—including private detectives, who followed the movement of some of the items. As a result, it made an estimate. I do not think that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which examined the issue, disagreed with that estimate; I do not think that the Minister of State and his colleagues did, either. The estimate was that, in 1993, at least £1 billion-worth of alcohol was purchased in France and brought back to the United Kingdom. That means that our Treasury has lost £470 million in revenue—£315 million in loss of duty and £154 million in lost VAT.
My concern results from representations made to me by members of my union and others. About two weeks ago, I went to Calais to see for myself. That was quite enlightening. I wanted to know what effect was being
1418
produced in the north-east of England, the area that I represent. I had been told that a number of organised gangs in my area were involved in smuggling alcohol, and I went to Calais to see whether I could identify any of those gangs.
One of the colleagues who accompanied me asked how I would identify the gangs from the north-east. I said, "If I put on a Sunderland scarf, I shall quickly find out which are from Newcastle, and if I put on a Newcastle scarf, I shall quickly find out which are from Sunderland." In fact, that was not necessary: I could have put on a Manchester City scarf and found the gangs from Manchester, put on a Sheffield United scarf and found the ones from Sheffield or put on a Celtic or Rangers scarf and found the ones from Glasgow. The gangs come from all over the country. However, I found that there was a preponderance from London, the south-east and the north-east of England where a large amount of trafficking was taking place. It is a serious threat.
During the week before I went to Calais, in just one day private detectives identified 300 transit vans from the United Kingdom going on and off the boat. I was there for one morning a week last Monday and I saw dozens of vans queuing up at all the outlets.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith from Melton Mowbray go to a legitimate superstore in Calais and buy small amounts for their own consumption. The smuggling trade takes place in the back yards and peripheral industrial estates in Calais. There is usually a typical warehouse with the hamburger stall, the muddy forecourt, a fork-lift truck and all the pallets of beer. Most transit vans can take two pallets of beer. There are 96 cases in one pallet and 24 bottles in a case. So, the lads with one transit van have over 2,000 pints of beer in the back. If one approaches them to ask whether it is for their personal consumption, they say, "Why aye, man. It's for us."
No doubt some of my good friends in the city of Newcastle could consume 2,000 pints of beer in a fairly short time. Some hon. Members may even be able to help them without too much difficulty. However, the average people involved in smuggling are not bringing back what is effectively contraband for their own use; they are bringing it back to sell it. In doing so, they are threatening the jobs of many people involved in the manufacturing and distribution of beer, and they must be threatening six northern breweries. A further threat that has not been identified so far is that from mail order roll-on/roll-off smuggling of alcohol.
I wish to draw the House's attention to the details of a legal arrangement involving the importation of cigarettes from Belgium. In Belgium, the duty on cigarettes is much lower than in most other European countries, and it is substantially lower than in Britain. A new company trying to break into the cigarette market is called the Enlightened Tobacco Company. The House will be pleased to know that its product is not called Anchor, Senior Service or Weights, but is called Death.
The Enlightened Tobacco Company has tried to break into the United Kingdom cigarette market, but the distributors have said that, if that product is put on the shelves, all the other tobacco companies will take theirs off. So the corner shop is effectively prevented from buying from the normal distributors. The Enlightened Tobacco Company has said, "We can get round this. We can get the cigarettes for your corner shop in Belgium."

1419
Article 6 of the single market agreement says that duty becomes chargeable at
"the time of release for consumption".
The corner shop retailer appoints the agent of the Enlightened Tobacco Company to purchase the tobacco and the duty becomes payable when the tobacco is released for consumption—that is, when it is given to the agent. So duty is paid under Belgian law, not British law. Also, the retailer does not have to go to Belgium to collect the tobacco, because the agent delivers it anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Imagine if that were to be extended to alcohol. If it is legal for cigarettes, it is legal for alcohol and there may be court cases about that in the future. In Calais I spoke to a number of lads driving vans who had already cottoned on to that. They would not even have to risk hiring the van or buying the petrol. They would simply act as a distributor in whatever part of the United Kingdom they came from. They would appoint someone else to be their agent in France, who would buy the alcohol and pay the low French duty—one seventh of the level in the United Kingdom. They would then sell it to the corner shop.
It would not end at the corner shop. It would be a bit like dial-a-pint. One would not even have to go to the corner shop. One would be able to find a distributor's telephone number from the telephone directory or on the newsagent's window. A few cases of beer, with French duty placed on it, would then arrive at the doorstep. One would not have to go to an off-sales outlet to buy takeaway beer.
That would constitute a major threat to the British brewing industry. The transport of £1 billion of alcohol from France to Britain is equivalent to 15 per cent. of the legal takeaway trade in Britain. It is already making a dent in the business of many breweries that supply off-sales outlets throughout the United Kingdom. If that scam is allowed, it will lead to the destruction of a number of breweries, and provincial breweries in north-east England will be particularly vulnerable to the threat.
Action must to be taken now. The problem will not go away. In his speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to acknowledge that there is a problem. He has not, however, taken action that will be effective. Freezing duties on alcohol is, to some extent, a concession to brewers and to the workers who make the beer, but it will not protect their business or their jobs. It makes only a marginal difference to the gap between alcohol duties in France and those in the UK.
We must face up to the problem. Step one should be to set up an official inquiry so that it is not only hon. Members who explain their experiences or the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which I believe did not visit Calais—it certainly did not make an official visit—that makes statements. The brewers and trade unions that represent brewery workers say that there is a problem. I think—in fact, I know—that there is a problem. I hope that the Government will recognise that and set up an inquiry.
The problem will not be easily resolved. It was not clever this week to reduce the number of customs officers involved in attempting to track down illegal trade, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged to the House that a major problem existed. We must tighten our customs procedures. I want far more undercover activity by customs officers chasing the vans. Illegal trade
1420
involves not only small transit vans, but large articulated lorries. One can get a lot more than two pallets of beer on a large artic.
In the northern economic region of England, there have been only two prosecutions since January 1993, and only one of them has been successful. That is not satisfactory. The prosecution level should be higher. I do not claim that that will be easy. It is difficult to find the people who are reselling the alcohol. Under current law, it is not illegal if one does not find them reselling the alcohol.
Some of the comments that I am about to make might not be popular with certain Labour Members.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Ah.
Mr. Henderson: My comments will certainly not be popular with Conservative Members.
As the European economies become more convergent, we should not ignore the fact that duties are substantially different from one European country to another. We must start to think about how to close the gap to take away the incentive for smuggling.
We should not be talking about reducing tobacco duties, but insisting that other European countries increase their tobacco duties so that they are more in line with ours. Britain needs to take unilateral action on beer duties as an example to other European countries and to protect our industry. Over a period, we need to consider how we can properly introduce moves towards greater harmonisation of some of our taxes, including VAT and duty.
There is a major problem, which will not go away. In the past 10 years, it has got worse because, while other European countries have frozen indirect taxes in real terms, Britain has increased them. The problem is much worse than it would have been if the single market had been introduced in 1981 instead of 1993. But there is a problem, and we have to face it. I hope that the Minister of State will at least acknowledge the fact that there is a case for a proper formal inquiry, with representation from the different parts of the industry and others, which could provide a basis for firm action in next year's Budget. I do not believe that the action taken this year is sufficiently strong to tackle the issue.
9.19 pm
Ms Dawn Primarolo: The House RS grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his eloquent and detailed illustration of the problems being experienced with the substantial traffic of alcohol into Britain, and the threat that that poses to the brewing industry. The issue is complex, and I hope that the Minister will agree that we need to investigate the situation and to establish a consensus—dare I use that word?—on how to proceed.
This has been an interesting and excellent debate. We have heard substantial disagreement among Conservative Members, and at one stage I thought that some of them were practising making speeches from the Opposition Benches—something that I hope that they will be able to do very soon.
Output has risen and unemployment is lower, but that is the end of the good news. The economy is still weak—2.5 million people are out of work, investment is low, the public services are under stress. The Chancellor set

1421
himself three priorities for the Budget—sustainable growth, job creation and strengthening the economy in the long term. Those are welcome priorities, and represent a marked change from the monetarist rhetoric of the 1980s. However, the Budget fails to measure up to the Chancellor's aims, especially on jobs. The measures to create jobs and to give long-term strength to the economy fall far short of what is needed.
The Government's support for training will be cut, as the Department of Employment's three-year virtual cash freeze continues. The national insurance holiday to encourage employers to take on the long-term unemployed will be held back for 18 months. Any new jobs created will be more than offset by public capital spending cuts, which will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs across the economy in the next three years. The four-year freeze on cash spending for Departments could lead to further job losses.
The 1994 Budget is bad news for living standards and for jobs in Britain. Any minor cuts in tax this year are also more than offset by the extra taxes announced in last year's Budget and confirmed in this Budget, especially the rise in VAT.
With cuts in public spending jeopardising jobs in the public and private sectors alike, British workers feel less secure. The prospect of tax cuts in two years' time, if they materialise at all, is cold comfort now. There will be no feel-good factor from the Budget. Higher growth rates in 1994 and 1995 should not obscure the fact that many people will face the immediate consequences of cuts in the public sector and in investment. Benefit changes and special employment measures will have to wait.
Nothing in the Chancellor's statement deals with the long-term need to increase investment in the infrastructure and in quality training, or with the urgent problem of excessive dividend payments. Instead, resources are being cut in all sectors and help for industry is conspicuous by its paucity.
The Chancellor announced that his package of work incentives would cost £680 million, although it is not clear whether that represents a per annum cost—I am sure that it does not. However, the incentive to employers to take on the long-term unemployed will cost only £45 million, less than 7 per cent. of the total, and even that is not due to start until April 1996.
The workstart pilots are to be extended, but at a cost of £8 million. When set against the £10 billion improvement in the GDP this year and the £8.5 billion improvement in the PSBR in the next financial year, those sums are trivial, given the scale of the problem that they need to attack. Moreover, the figures show that there was no need to go ahead with the increase in VAT. The Government are taxing people now in the hope that they will be able to give some money back at a later stage and be congratulated for the exercise.
Workers in companies in the skilled sector, such as British Aerospace, who have recently been told that they are to lose their jobs, found little comfort in any of the Government's schemes for the future. They are highly skilled workers soon to be unemployed. They do not want three-week work trials or fiddle schemes. Ninety-five per cent. of the most highly skilled work force are in aerospace industries and they are losing their jobs. The
1422
Government do nothing except offer gimmicks and schemes which do not materialise into real jobs. That is against a background in which the Confederation of British Industry has identified a lower level of skills in Britain than in our main competitor countries and persistent trade deficits in manufactured goods. In the CBI manufacturing bulletin of November 1994, skill levels were identified as the likely significant contributor to the United Kingdom's low productivity. That is continuing.
Changing patterns of employment mean that as well as a strategy to keep people in work, we need a strategy to get people back to work. During the Government's reign we have seen a growth in insecurity in the labour market. Most of the new jobs created in Britain between 1993 and 1994 were white collar, insecure jobs. Many were low-paid. Drawing on unpublished figures from the Department of Employment's labour force survey, a new Trades Union Congress report shows that, in the same period, 130,000 new temporary jobs were created, while permanent jobs declined by 26,000. Many of the new jobs are in low-paid industries such as the hotel and catering industry. The situation requires a response which recognises that job security and full employment go together.
The Chancellor said that his second priority for the Budget was job creation, particularly for the long-term unemployed. He said:
"We must combine greater prosperity for the majority of our people with measures to prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass, excluded from the opportunity to work and dependent on welfare."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1079.]
Where has the Chancellor been? What does he mean by "prevent the emergence" of an underclass? Has he not discovered the people who are caught in the unbreakable circle of high rent, poverty, benefits and work?
The Government have not discovered a way to break into the interlocking system of personal disaster—a system that relies on housing benefit for its survival. Quite the contrary, they intend to kick away housing benefit. That will plunge that section of our community into isolation and despair. The Budget is long on schemes for April 1996 and short on jobs. It marks a decisive shift in favour of the creation of low-paid employment. Many will find themselves even less able to escape reliance on benefit. Measures designed to encourage employers to take on the unemployed are less likely to result in new jobs than to result in a general lowering of pay in existing jobs. There is more encouragement to follow the low-wage, low-skill strategy than ever before in Britain.
Every economic measure has a different effect on men and on women because of women's different marital status, entitlement to benefits and lower earnings. The Government claim to have understood the changes in the labour market and to be designing policies that will tackle them, but they have not. Women are over-represented among the low-paid and have to bear a disproportionate burden of previous budgets.
The gap between women's and men's earnings is gradually closing, but the divide between people at the top and people at the bottom of the earnings scale remains as wide as ever. Despite the narrowing of the pay gap, women have a long time to wait before they can celebrate real equality. At the present rate of progress, it will take another 33 years for the gap between men's and women's earnings to close completely, and there are potentially worrying signs that the pace of change has noticeably

1423
slowed in the past two years. That is not only important for women but crucial in understanding the changing nature of work and of household budgets and in understanding how to tackle that change in making strides to create work.
Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the average male contribution to household budgets fell from 75 per cent. in the early 1980s to 60 per cent. by 1991. Families headed by a single male breadwinner are now outnumbered nearly three to one by homes where both parents work.
Women work to provide financial security for their families, but the Government have not understood the implications for women's ability to work of the proposals in the Budget. Any increase in living standards that has occurred among dual-earner households has not been matched among one-parent families. The full-time employment rate in the latter households fell to 37 per cent.
In the Budget, measures to help people back to work were concentrated on three policies—relief during the transitional period from benefits to paid work, help for the long-term unemployed and help when moving from part-time to full-time work. Those measures are welcome, although we must recognise that they are very poor and will not assist many people to move out of the poverty trap. The second and third measures, however, do not deal with the problems that many unemployed women face, especially those with caring responsibilities.
Let us consider the proposals for helping the long-term unemployed.
Ms Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget contains no proposals to increase the supply of day care provision for parents who require that to enable them both to work, or to increase any assistance within the taxation system to help with child care?
Ms Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As she pointed out in her contribution to the debate, the Government's promises to create nursery places and assist working parents have not materialised. Although child care is identified as one of the major barriers to women taking up full or part-time employment, the Government still refuse to deal with it. Indeed, in their proposals for the long-term unemployed, they have not taken on board the argument about child care and care responsibilities.
To qualify for the schemes, a person must have been continuously registered as unemployed for two years, but many women with children cannot register. The rules require them to show that they are available for work and they must demonstrate that they already have in place adequate child care—an impossibility for most mothers. That clearly demonstrates the Government's hypocrisy in claiming to represent all our community, saying that there have been changes in employment patterns, recognising the contribution that women could and should be able to make to employment, but making no changes in their legislation to assist. That is echoed when we look at the proposals for assisting individuals who are moving from part-time to full-time work. Several measures are designed to help people in full-time work, but no such assistance is given to those in part-time work.
1424
It is known that most women need part-time work because they feel that that allows them to balance their care responsibilities. The greatest barrier for mothers who want to work is the lack of affordable care for children and for the elderly, and the Government refuse to address that when they consider how to assist people into paid work. They consider how they can assist men and women without children into the labour market, but women with children are unacceptable.
The Budget has not helped the low-paid individually, and it has done nothing to attack the over-reliance in our economy on low-skilled, low-wage labour. As a result, women will continue to suffer. Their potential will remain unused in the economy, and that will brings poverty wages.
Little has been done to compensate for the increased tax burden on the low-paid from freezing their allowances and increasing national insurance contributions in 1993. Improving women's opportunities to get out of the low-wage ghetto has not been helped by encouraging employers to take on more low-paid workers.
Labour's policy for a national insurance holiday for employers taking on the long-term unemployed has been stolen by the Tories, but with the proviso that their policy does not include adequate wage levels and a provision for training. In the absence of those features, there is no encouragement to shift the character of the UK labour market away from a low-wage, low-skill economy to a high-wage, high-skill economy. That is necessary both for our future economic security and for reducing the size of the low-paid sector in which women are disproportionately concentrated.
If more women were Members of this House, those are the issues which would be debated on both sides of the House, and that would ensure that women had fair game in the House. It has been noticeable that, so far in the Budget debate, contributions from Conservative women Members have been absent.
There has been no closing of the poverty trap. Benefit penalties on earnings which act as a disincentive to take up work have been marginally reformed, but those reforms are not radical enough to have any effect on the majority of women lone parents who want to work, but cannot afford it. Mothers earn on average 22 per cent. less than women without children. The average lifetime income for women has reduced by £11,000, while the average for men has increased by the same amount.
The conditions under which the Beveridge welfare state were created half a century ago no longer exist. Beveridge's assumption that women would not work outside the home and that the nuclear family would exist are no longer the norm. Mothers deserve incentives to return to work, rather than having shattered their hopes that they can afford to work and still care for their children. The Government are in a position to provide those incentives with policies aimed at the elimination of the crucial problems which face women.
Jobs and pay segregation stem from inadequate maternity benefits and a fear that women will take time off to look after their children. There is a lack of adequate child care and wage security, and encouraging employers to address those issues is an important step to eliminating the inequality and low pay which faces women in our society.

1425
The challenge to the Government is to pursue policies that speed up job creation by offering more skilled and attractive jobs, while enabling the unskilled and the non-employed to update their skills and to get paid work. After the Budget, the Conservative Government will continue to be held in almost universal contempt and treated with almost universal derision.
The Government have produced a fix-it Budget, to rake money in now in order to give it back, perhaps, in the vain hope that that will assist them to cling on to power. The Budget is an attempt to try to fix it for the Government rather than to fix it for the country. We shall ensure that the Government are fixed at the next general election—fixed to the Opposition Benches—and thrown out of power.
9.39 pm
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): Despite the somewhat unpleasant sting in the tail of the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), I congratulate her on what I think is her debut performance from the Opposition Treasury Bench, on which I hope she will spend many years successfully deliberating and contributing on Treasury matters.
The hon. Lady made a considered and thoughtful speech and I acknowledge what she said about the rights and opportunities of women. I shared some of her sentiments, although not all of her premises and certainly not many of her conclusions. The hon. Lady's speech was thoughtful, however, and I welcome her contribution to what has undoubtedly been a lively and forthright debate on the Budget.
I do not think the same can be said of the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who is by no means a debutante at Treasury debates. On numerous occasions she has appeared opposite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when she has been consistently intellectually mauled or politically trounced by him across the Dispatch Box. I am afraid that today was no exception.
As I observed how the hon. Lady became more bitter as her speech progressed, I tried to work out why. It certainly could not have been in reaction to the unassailable reasonableness and effectiveness of my right hon. Friend's arguments. I came to the conclusion that it was because she had not been invited to my right hon. Friend's party to celebrate his 10 years as a Member of Parliament. Perhaps no one gave the hon. Lady a party on her 10th anniversary, I do not know. I feel sorry for the hon. Lady, and I hope that she will not be a Cinderella on future occasions.
I should like to follow the convention and courtesy displayed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and acknowledge briefly the speeches that have been made today. I assure all hon. Members who contributed to this useful debate that their comments will be carefully considered, even though we cannot obviously agree with all of them.
The debate started with a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who spoke of the unfair competition
1426
between Heysham and Liverpool and asked about the European grants that are available for competing cities and installations.
Ms Eagle: Where is he?
Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend explained to me why he could not be here for the winding-up speeches.
Although European Community grants are considered carefully on the basis regional gross national product and regional employment, Heysham is covered by the European social fund. We will bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments and the wider issues that he raised.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who also kindly informed me that he could not be 'here for the conclusion of the debate, condemned the Budget as irrelevant. I obviously do not agree with that. I come from the great city of Norwich and I was concerned and interested to hear his reports of unemployment and his concern about the future level of economic and industrial activity in Norwich. I firmly assert that prospects for Norwich and other cities will be well served by the Budget judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. The economic recovery is reflected in Norwich, as it is elsewhere, and therein lies the best prospects for sustained employment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Ayr (Mr.Gallie), along with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), raised the important and controversial issue of VAT on fuel and power. Even though they made their positions clear, I hope that they are not non-negotiable but subject to influence. We acknowledge that the tax is not popular—no tax is—but it is an essential part of the arithmetic in making the books balance and redressing the state of public finances. As I shall tell the House later, the bottom line, objective and issue of principal concern must be the amount that we borrow to finance our public expenditure. That would be an issue, whichever party happened to be in government, and the present Government have the difficult but important principal task of measuring up to it.
Through a tax that will raise a considerable amount of money in gross and net terms, we have sought to contribute to meeting that challenge. The tax will raise slightly less than £3 billion in a full year. However, a substantial package of compensation, targeted to assist the people in most need, will reduce it to about £1.6 billion. A considerable programme of help for pensioners and other people on the lowest means, and help reflecting cold weather or exceptional circumstances, has been built on by my right hon. and learned friend the Chancellor in the Budget.
We cannot afford to run away from the problem of deficit redress, and of the need to tackle that, which will not be met by taxes which will raise fairly minor sums against the amount involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said clearly that he would favour an income tax supplement as an alternative. I hear what he says, but that would directly reverse our trends and intentions on direct taxation.
Other people have not come clean about whether they would favour greater borrowing, other reductions in the expenditure programme, or alternative taxes. It behoves those who seek not to go ahead with or to condemn the second stage of VAT to confront the consequences. I say that not simply for the fiscal judgment, but for monetary

1427
policy, because the connection between monetary and fiscal policy is direct and the markets will read clearly and carefully our determination to face up to our responsibilities in government.
Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Nelson: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will try to give way later, but I am anxious to make a little progress.
The hon. Members for Tooting and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) mentioned the important issue of housing in their constituencies. Housing problems are a subject of direct concern to all hon. Members in our surgeries and our mailbags. Although changes have been announced and proposed in the programmes for housing and in local authority support announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, it is worth noting some of the changes and improvements that are being made in that sector which will add considerably to the quantity of social lettings. We estimate that the combination of Housing Corporation, local authority and private finance will add about 185,000 new social lettings in the next three years.
In addition, there is help in the form of the revised real guidelines on rent setting, which will taper rent increases to a reduced extent; that will assist many people with their council housing costs. We are doubling the amount that is made available for the cash incentive scheme, to encourage people to move out of the public sector into the private sector and so release resources. The Housing Corporation will spend an extra £6 billion in the next three years, adding to the considerable achievement of not only meeting our manifesto target of 153,000 properties, but exceeding it by 26,000.
We shall spend about £30 million on an empties programme to ensure that we release, use and occupy more empty local authority properties. That will affect the quantity of new lettings and their price, at a time when properties are a good deal more affordable and rents much more comparable with the costs of purchasing. Those actions will give hope to many of the people whose interests were rightly represented today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield also mentioned in passing the problems of the film industry. I hear what he says. That is a matter not for this Budget, but perhaps for future ones. I am bound to observe that the film industry is a great success. Julia Roberts and Arnold Schwarzenegger are coming to this country. The amount being spent is exciting. The film industry is one of the great success stories—mainly, I have to say, because of the restrictive union policies in the United States, which have driven out employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is undoubtedly true, and much of that money and employment is coming to the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend called for no rises in interest rates. It is not for me to speculate about future rates but I have mentioned the need for a responsible fiscal policy to keep them as low as possible.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) spoke about his constituency. As I represent a constituency not far from his, I am conscious of the problems that the recession has caused, especially in the south where such unemployment, particularly of professional executives, has not occurred before. But matters are improving in his constituency and mine. The hon. Gentleman sees the employment figure for this year in his local job centre and
1428
he knows the extent of the recovery in economic activity and new employment. Not only that, but there has been an increase in the number of people who find employment soon after becoming unemployed.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for a working benefit scheme, but I imagine that such a scheme would go well beyond the Chancellor's proposals. The hon. Gentleman suggested somewhat mischievously that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was not totally behind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate for Employment. I can think of no more united and harmonious relationship of intellect and resources on these matters. [Interruption.] Surely that is incontrovertible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) welcomed the reductions in public expenditure as showing that we were cutting our cloth and economising. He referred to the Chancellor as a madman wielding an axe—Ken the magician or Ken the axeman. I took it that those were compliments.
Mr. John Townend: He is not Ken the axeman.
Mr. Nelson: He is Ken the magician. The extent to which my right hon. and learned Friend has cut expenditure and is delivering a substantial recovery in our economic fortunes beyond anything prophesied by the Opposition or outside economists is a considerable personal and political achievement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and other hon. Members spoke about the aid budget, which has been increased a little this year. I received representations from the aid lobbies and from the Council of Churches, and again this year we decided to improve the aid budget in real terms. That is supported in all parts of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who made a colourful and interesting speech which I shall read and reflect upon, spoke about cross-border shopping. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North unveiled some interesting tricks about how that is done, and they will be of direct concern to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
Considerable amounts of duty—some £4 billion on alcoholic beverages and £3 billion on tobacco—are involved, and in paying for the public services that we all cherish, we cannot afford to ignore such flows of funds. Total resources from those duties have risen since the implementation of the single market. For the second year running, the Chancellor has been able to freeze those, and that is a reflection of the fact that the disparity has been taken into account. I hope that that will have an impact. This will be a long-term issue and there are no easy resolutions in a single market which, although it confers benefits, presents difficulties because of different systems of indirect taxation on beverages and tobacco.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) spoke about housing and clearly spelled out the problems in his constituency. I have said a little about that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on his achievements in the Northern Ireland Office where he was responsible for economic and other matters. He spoke about competitiveness and its key importance to British industry. That was the subject of a major White Paper and a Government action programme earlier this year. He

1429
asked about the M25 links and the widening at Slough in his constituency. He will know that all those road schemes are subject to reconsideration following the announcement on the roads programme.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke about standard spending assessments in his constituency and their impact. I understand that his constituency's position in the league table has risen somewhat, but he made an impassioned plea—as we all do in our constituency capacity from time to time—for a better share of the allocation.
I take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said about expenditure priorities. It will not surprise him to learn that we have different priorities, which were borne out by his comments on indirect and direct taxation. We have a popular mandate for moving the balance away from direct to indirect taxation. That is not easy, but the benefits will become increasingly apparent as the incentives of a lower burden of taxation on earnings and income result in reinvestment, the propensity to save and higher economic activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) asked for his spirits to be raised. He wondered why it was necessary to raise taxes when the economy was doing so well. Obviously, it is good that the economy is doing well and it is regrettable that we have to raise taxes, but I must repeat that it is of central importance to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and, over the years, get our debts back into balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) accurately reflected the success of our policies in his constituency. He said quite a bit about exports and the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the extent to which that would fuel industry and trade abroad. He also welcomed the proposed changes on insolvency and made a plea about capital gains tax which we shall bear in mind for the future.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) spoke of the need for more generous subsidies and more jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said, we reject the case for throwing more money at those issues. The quality as well as the quantity of public finance is important. She referred, not for the first time, to the Maples memorandum. There were some ribald comments about that. John Maples was my predecessor as Economic Secretary. The moral must be to keep one's memos to oneself. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will be pleased to hear that it is not my habit to draft many memorandums.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said that it was a Budget for the rich and that training had been cut. We reject that, because we believe that our proposals, measured as they are, will sustain the recovery and will, as all forecasts—not just from the Treasury, but from outside bodies—suggest, lead to further reductions in the level of unemployment.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) referred to capital investment, especially in education. I am sure that she would be the first to welcome the fact that another £60 million is being spent on schools' capital programmes.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) welcomed the landfill tax. He made a plea for the M74, which we shall take into account. He also said
1430
that he wanted action on late payment of debt, which is currently the subject of a Confederation of British Industry working party.
My right hon. and learned Friend's safe and sound Budget had the prime objective of keeping the economic recovery on track, but in so doing he was also able to find substantial resources for a small business programme and for ensuring that the long-term jobless are helped to get back into employment. [Interruption.] However, the central objective remains the necessity to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. [Interruption.] I remind the House that the national debt stands at £285 billion, of which £238 billion is in gilts and about £51 billion in national savings. The interest costs on our borrowings amount to £22.6 billion a year—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they should do so in the time-honoured way and not by sedentary interventions.
Mr. Nelson: Interest costs amount to more than the whole of our defence programme, more than the whole of our education programme and more than the whole of our law and order programme. If we allow them to build up, we shall not just carry forward a heritage of borrowing—we shall be saddling ourselves with ever higher recurrent costs at the expense of other public expenditure priorities.
Eventually, if we again reach a point at which we can repay debt and ensure that we can maintain low interest rates, reducing the cost of bearing debt, that will be good. But there are other technical ways of trying to improve the market and the cost of our gilts. One is the announcement of the introduction of a repo market, the other is a debt management review which is currently going on. We are also considering the introduction of certain new types of bond. We do not want anything too bizarre, but certain exotic bonds might be on the menu as we look for ways of supplying the market to ensure that we do not have a scatter gun across the yield curve and that we finance our borrowing requirement at the least cost to the taxpayer.
It is in the business package, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has done most for the economy, not just a substantial amount to assist those small businesses in the north of England who would otherwise be faced with substantial rate increases and some three quarters—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday 5 December.

PRIVILEGES
Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Tony Benn be discharged from the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Water Charges
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Before the House adjourns, I wish to discuss the differentials in water charges in the ward of Selsdon in my constituency.
Anyone who has taken an active interest in politics in the past 10 years will remember the famous Conservative party political broadcast from Hazelbourne road. On one side, the residents lived in Wandsworth and on the other the residents lived in Lambeth. The broadcast emphasised the difference in rates between the two sides of the street.
That information sought to give the electorate financial information to help them to decide how best to cast their vote—for a high-cost, low-service Labour-run authority or a low-cost, efficient, well-run Conservative-controlled authority: a clear choice.
Farley road in the ward of Selsdon has a similar problem, not with council tax levels but with water charges. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Kendall, has her water supplied by East Surrey water company. She was astonished to find that her neighbour in a similar property paid more than £100 less for his water than she did. The reason for that was, as in the rates example, that the services came from different suppliers. In this case, Mrs. Kendall's neighbour received cheaper water from Thames Water.
Mrs. Kendall and her neighbours on her side of the road had the geographical misfortune of having their water supplied by East Surrey water company. East Surrey is listed as being the third most expensive supplier of water in the country—the average bill, according to the Office of Water Services, being £151.
I am pleased to place on record the fact that I have no complaint against the quality of supply or the service of East Surrey, both of which are well up to standard. Indeed, East Surrey recently won a prize for the quality of its water. My complaint is that its charges are out of line, and that is what I wish to draw to the attention of the House.
The neighbours supplied by Thames Water, whose charges, when sewerage and water services are combined, are among the lowest of all water companies, face an average bill of £79 per annum, almost half that of East Surrey.
The problem is not restricted to Farley road—far from it. East Surrey supplies some 25,000 households in my constituency, representing 65,000 residents. They have been paying almost twice as much as their neighbours in the north of the borough for a similar supply. The area affected covers all the houses in the Coulsdon, East, Kenley, Sanderstead and Selsdon wards and most houses in Croham and Purley, together with a small area of Woodcote and the Coulsdon, West ward.
The borough of Croydon had a hard look at the matter, prompted by Dudley Mead, the excellent Conservative councillor for Selsdon. It proposed that all customers of East Surrey within the borough of Croydon should have their source of supply transferred en masse to Thames Water.
In the spirit of competition fostered by the Conservative Government over the past decade, telephone customers have a choice, as do gas users, and we will soon be able
1432
to choose our electricity supplier. The relevant legislation, the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended by the Competition and Service (Utilities Act) 1992, encourages the same.
At the council's request, Thames Water undertook a feasibility study, which confirmed that Thames would be interested in taking on the area in question. The company found that it would have to provide a water main connection in at least one location in the borough, and it proposed using existing pipework to households. The majority of residents who made their views known supported the change.
I received many letters from constituents requesting that Thames Water be encouraged to take over their supply. Mr. Ray Rowsell, chairman of Selsdon residents association said:
"We are very hopeful of obtaining a transfer because East Surrey's water charge levels cannot be justified."
This autumn, Croydon council and Thames Water put their proposals to the Director General of Ofwat, Mr. Ian Byatt. He did not make a ruling but gave his interpretation of current legislation: that Thames Water would be permitted to serve customers in the East Surrey supply area only if it constructed its own separate supply network or—and this is important—if Thames Water was appointed the supplier under the inset provisions of the 1991 Act. That Act would permit Thames Water to supply East Surrey if it were a green-field site, which it is not, if the host water company were to agree, and it does not, or if the individual customers concerned used more than a threshold of 250 megalitres of water a year: average family use is 0.15 megalitres.
The combined households of the area in question could transfer en masse. They consume a combined total of 3,000 megalitres—well above the legislative guideline figure. However, in Ofwat's view, each house is a separate entity and together the properties do not constitute a block that could transfer en masse. That is the nub of the argument.
Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate for the Environment can help, without new primary legislation being necessary, by amending the competition threshold in the spirit of competition policy that the Government are always keen to encourage.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend understands that the matter is by no means simple. Were such a transfer to occur, my constituents served by East Surrey would see their water charges rise substantially. Although East Surrey is an efficient water company, it is largely rural—and that is why the cost is higher.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I will refer to it shortly.
It is required of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an order, so that groups of individual customers can be considered as one large individual customer for the purposes of the 1991 Act, and possibly to lower the threshold of 250 megalitres a year to one that encompasses a street of customers. That would allow a suitably located street to transfer across a boundary to a more advantageously priced area.

1433
Not surprisingly, East Surrey is not in favour of those proposals. Mr. Phil Holder, managing director of the company—for whom I have the highest regard—says:
"Whilst understanding the position of Croydon Council and sympathising with customers who pay more than their neighbours … we must emphasise that transfers of this type are not in the best interests of all our customers."
A spokesman added:
"We do not want to lose our customers."
That was a surprise.
East Surrey makes two key arguments. The first is that the pipework belongs to the company and is not available to Thames Water. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ordered a boundary change for areas of responsibility, Thames could take over the existing East Surrey pipes, but would be obliged to reimburse East Surrey for its loss; Ofwat would set the compensation.
The second argument is that allowing transfer of the affected area, which represents a substantial part of East Surrey's business, could mean prices rising for other consumers outside the borough boundaries, as my hon. Friend said.
My response is that, for decades, urban areas have been subsidising rural areas. It is about time that rural areas paid a more realistic contribution to their water charges. That is not a penalty, but a removal of the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) perhaps winced a little at that, and I suspect that his constituents would do the same, but I have an answer.
If that is unacceptable to the residents of east Surrey, the alternative would be for Thames Water to take over the entire East Surrey water area, and it has assured me today that that would result in significantly lower water charges for everybody in east Surrey. I am sure that that would be very popular. If my hon. Friend were to assist me in that, I am sure that he would be very popular.
One could have some sympathy with the users in the rural areas if it were not for the fact that East Surrey Water reported a profit increase last year of more than 45 per cent.—some £8.2 million on a turnover of only £25.5 million—and as such should be prepared to submit to competition. The case is not helped by the fact that, in 1991, two directors, who held almost half the shares, were paid a dividend of £1.17 million at a time when consumers faced an increase of 24 per cent. That prompted Ofwat, in a letter dated 12 July 1991, to express concern about the levels of prices, profits and dividends. Regrettably, it took no further action.
I am afraid that East Surrey Water merely wishing to restrict its customers from obtaining services elsewhere is simply not a good enough reason for preventing access to those households by Thames Water.
In summary, the people of Croydon, supported by their borough council, want a low-cost service and Thames Water is in a position and is willing to provide it. The only objection comes from another company, which, understandably, does not want to lose business, but which is, after all, competing in a market economy. The main argument is that the high cost is due to supplying those who live in rural areas. But Selsdon and the rest of my constituency is not a rural area. It is not even in Surrey. It is a London suburb and, as such, should be supplied by Thames Water.
1434
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to consider whether the Government should consider loosening the regulator's guidelines, keeping within the Government's desire to increase competition in that industry, and whether the regulator's preliminary observation is within the spirit of the Water Act 1991, as amended.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is also my neighbour, for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It is a serious matter and it raises a number of interesting issues.
As my hon. Friend outlined, we have here two water companies with very different characteristics. Thames is a very large concern with responsibilities not only for water supply but for sewerage, although it is its water supply responsibilities with which we are concerned tonight. East Surrey is a much smaller company, which supplies only water.
The contrast could hardly be greater. Thames supplies water over an area of more than 8,000 sq km; East Surrey, 700. Thames supplies 7.3 million people with water; East Surrey just over 300,000. As we have heard, the average Thames Water charge is £83 while East Surrey's is £141. In respect of those charges, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that the charges of the other 10 water companies having a similar boundary to Thames range from £81 for Severn Trent to £152 for South East Water.
The limits on water charges that individual companies can make and which feed through to customers' bills are rigorously controlled under statute, which provides that they are set by the Director General of Ofwat. In setting those limits, the director general has a duty to protect the interests of customers, but he also has a duty to ensure that the companies can finance the improvements in services which the customers themselves expect to be undertaken, and meet their obligations regarding water quality.
In his recent periodical review of price limits, the director general has taken the view that water companies should be able to operate more efficiently and finance their functions at a lower cost of capital. In the light of that, he has imposed limits which are considerably more stringent than before.
That will still mean that charges will vary from company to company. But differences in charges cannot be used as an indicator that one company is more efficient than another. Indeed, taking the companies in question, Ofwat, as part of its periodical review, identified East Surrey as one of 10 companies "being more efficient". Thames, with 13 other companies, was identified as being of "average efficiency" in the way in which it handled its operating costs.
Inevitably, the level of charges imposed by a water company will depend on its particular circumstances. The larger customer base of Thames Water, for instance, and the proportion of its customers who are in relatively densely populated areas and can therefore be supplied less expensively, are factors in its lower charges. The company, however, also supplies more sparsely populated areas such as the Cotswolds. I am sure that my hon.

1435
Friend will know of the large amount of capital construction that it undertakes each year, the new London ring main being an outstanding example.
East Surrey, in contrast, supplies a number of small towns and rural areas, which—as has been pointed out—tends to put up costs. But two of the main factors that increase charges are the company's greater need for capital expenditure on its network—its current system has an implied life of 100 years, compared with 800 years for Thames—and the fact that East Surrey is one of only two companies that soften the water before it goes into supply.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What about the profits—the large profits—the excessive profits?
Sir Paul Beresford: I have a funny feeling that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) wants to buy into the company because of the profits.
The characteristics of the raw water will also affect costs and treatment. For example, the relative hardness of the water will vary according to its source, and the services on offer from each company will vary. Softer water may save both domestic and industrial consumers considerable money, as it will—for example—have a less detrimental affect on heating systems. East Surrey has softened the water for many years. I understand that the issue of whether the practice should continue was taken up with customers and local authorities about 10 years ago, when the company was renewing two major treatment works. The consensus was that it should, and Croydon council was one of the local authorities that requested that it should continue.
I understand that, if water softening were abandoned and water of similar hardness to that supplied by Thames was put into the system, the cost of the water would be reduced significantly—perhaps to within 15 per cent. of the Thames price.
My hon. Friend asked whether the current legislation could be used to enable Thames to take over the supply of 20,000 homes currently supplied by East Surrey. The Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 extended the circumstances in which the director general can, through what is known as an inset appointment, make another company the water and sewerage company for an undeveloped or greentield site—that clearly does not apply in this instance—or a site where an existing large company is already receiving water. My hon. Friend suggested that, rather than take the number of individual
1436
customers as 20,000, we should divide them into streets. The same point still applies, however: the individuals still exist.
I understand the problem. However, the opportunities arise only when there are differences in charges between companies, which do not necessarily indicate differences in efficiency. Any change—if we went along the lines suggested—would still be highlighted at the new boundaries between the companies. The likely effect of allowing customers to change supplier in the way suggested would be a further rise in the charges of customers remaining with the original company. We have already heard a legitimate protest from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth).
The next obvious suggestion—which has already been made—is that it would make economic sense for one company to take over another. That is a sensible suggestion, but a quite different matter which would be for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned and their shareholders. They would have to take into account the advantages that they perceived, bearing in mind the fact that such takeovers would automatically be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as Thames Water's assets exceed the £30 million limit set in the legislation.
That, however, would be a very different matter from what is currently proposed, which is in effect "cherry picking"—to the advantage of one company and the detriment of the other and its remaining customers. That point in particular needs careful consideration.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It gives me the opportunity to explore it with him. I am sure that our discussion will concentrate the minds of both water companies on ways in which the problem could be tackled. It is a matter for them, but East Surrey may, in addition, want to look at the continuation of its water softening policy and Thames may wish to consider the commercial position.
The Government are continuing to look at ways of providing opportunities for direct competition where we can and we will take every opportunity to open up the industry to fair competition and to offer customers the choice which that allows. This debate has been an added spur to that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o 'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department how many are over the advised payments date (a) by up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (d) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. The last survey conducted in this Department showed that 89.4 per cent. of bills were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will change the legal aid scheme to provide easier access to alleged victims of domestic violence especially in regard to injunction proceedings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In urgent cases, an emergency legal aid certificate may be granted over the telephone. Many of those seeking injunctions already benefit from this service. Additionally, solicitors holding franchises are able to grant emergency certificates themselves on the spot.

TRANSPORT

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department of how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively;
  798
  (2) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Electrification (North London)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Railtrack to begin work on enlarging Hampstead tunnel and the electrification of the line between Mitre Bridge junction and Willesden high level junction.

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretary of State has instructed Railtrack to make sure that the necessary infrastructure is completed to allow Eurostar rail services from the regions to begin by the start of 1996. The timing of individual works to achieve this is a matter for Railtrack.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Freight
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Railtrack to begin and to complete its study into the feasibility of using the North Downs route for channel tunnel rail freight traffic; and if he will be making a statement on the findings of the study.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack reported to us in August 1994 that the North Downs route was not an option for channel tunnel freight trains. The scheme proposed would bring no environmental or operational benefit which might justify grant and the works required to upgrade the route would be very expensive. The proposal is therefore not being pursued.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory powers presently given to Railtrack and railway operators he intends to pass on to the private companies who purchase these shadow companies.

  Mr. Watts
  Our general policy is that all statutory powers transferred to Railtrack and railway operators from British Rail under the provisions of the Railways Act 1993, together with the statutory powers conferred by that Act, should be passed on when Rai1track and other railway operators move into the private sector. This will be reviewed in each case prior to disposal.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current legal status of Railtrack and the railway operating companies.

  Mr. Watts
  Rai1track is a company limited by shares, incorporated under the Companies Act 1985; all the shares are owned by the Government. Six passenger train operating companies have been formed. One of these— Gatwick Express Ltd.—is a wholly owned subsidiary of the board and is operating as a separate entity. The other five have not yet had the relevant parts of the board's undertaking transferred to them.
  799
  In addition, five freight and parcel companies have been formed, but the relevant parts of the board's undertaking have not yet been vested in them.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration British Rail gave in 1989 to implementing advice received from Mr. John Childs regarding the introduction for single-section track of two-way radios for train drivers and exit signals at either end of the track; if following the crash at Cowden on 15 October he will take urgent steps to implement it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The comments Mr. Childs expressed will be considered by the inspector in the course of his inquiry into the accident at Cowden on 15 October. The arrangements relating to single lines will be considered carefully in the light of the inspector's report.

  London Underground
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budgetary provision has been made by London Underground Ltd. to maintain the Epping to Ongar section of the Central line over the next three years.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd.

  Minibus Seat Belts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates of all meetings or correspondence he has had with European officials and representatives in respect of his proposal to introduce regulations for minibus seat belts in advance of European action; and if he will place the minutes of meetings and copies of the correspondence in the Library.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has had a number of contacts, both formal and informal, with the European Commission at meetings, in correspondence and by telephone on the proposal to act ahead of the European Union to introduce compulsory fitment of seat belts to all minibuses and coaches used specifically for the transport of children.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the national criteria for the provision of school crossing patrols; and what discretion the police or local authorities have over providing patrols

  Mr. Norris
  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 specifies that school crossing patrols may be provided at"places where children cross roads on their way to or from school, or from one part of a school to another, during periods between the hours of 8.00 am in the morning and 5.30 pm in the afternoon when children are so on their way".

  Subject to these requirements, the appropriate authority has discretion over providing patrols.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the research projects undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory into school crossing patrols and the criteria for the provision or crossing patrols.

  Mr. Norris
  The only TRL research project on school crossing patrols was report No. 779, published in 1977.800
  This looked at ways in which school crossing patrol officers instruct children about crossing roads.

  Rail Track Defects
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of railway track have speed restrictions imposed as a result of track defects or insufficient maintenance.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack does not keep a central record of track mileage bearing temporary speed restrictions.

  Bridges and Viaducts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost of maintaining railway bridges and viaducts in(a) north-west England and (b) England.

  Mr. Watts
  The cost of maintaining railway bridges and viaducts in Railtrack's north-west zone, which includes north Wales but excludes the west coast main line, is around £5 million a year. The cost for England and Wales is approximately £50 million. Figures excluding Wales are not available.

  Motorway Signs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are used to justify the addition or the removal of towns and cities from motorway direction signs.

  Mr. Watts
  The main criteria are traffic importance, the requirement to maintain continuity of signing for long-distance traffic, and the number of destinations that can be read by drivers in the time available. The principles of directional signing are explained in "The Design and Use of Directional Informatory Signs"—Local Transport Note 1/94—published by HMSO.

  Trains (Black Boxes)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the black box revealed in respect of the cause of the train crash on the 2 November on the Thames line service at Slough, Berkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is still investigating this accident.

  The results of the investigation and any recommendations made will be discussed with British Rail and/or Railtrack.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information sought is as follows:

  (a) Political advisers to the Secretary of State for Transport:

  Miss E. Buchanan; from September 1987 to November 1990.

  Mr. P. J. E. Miller; from January 1991 to March 1992.

  Mrs. E. F. Laing; from April 1992 to July 1994.

  Mr. M. G. E. Simmonds; from October 1994 to date.

  801

  (b) Special advisers with expert knowledge in particular fields:

  Professor B. J. Hoskins, special adviser on the global environmental aspects of transport policies, from February 1990 to November 1990.

  Sir Christopher Foster, special adviser on British rail privatisation, from June 1992 to November 1993.

  Sir Idris Pearce, special adviser on British Rail privatisation property issues, from June 1992 to July 1994.

  Mr. R. B. Salmon, special adviser on British Rail privatisation, from January 1993 to November 1993.

  Mr. J. Swift, special adviser on British Rail privatisation, from January 1993 to November 1993.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what occasions since 1979 civil servants in his Department have been asked to draft speeches of a constituency nature for use in a Minister's own constituency.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Civil servants may provide briefing of a factual nature for Ministers on matters relating to their own departments. In addition, Ministers in preparing for a constituency speech can draw on material produced by their Department during the normal course of business.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the Coba 9 framework in respect of the M11 Link Road.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 1 December 1994:
  I have been asked to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about COBA 9 frameworks prepared for the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road since this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  I have had drawn to my attention the letter which Mr. Steven Norris MP wrote to you about COBA for this road scheme on the 1 September 1993. As the Minister explained then, the evidence given at the Public Inquiries showed that the cost benefit analysis for this urban scheme, although based on COBA methodology and values, was a complex one-off exercise. The last full assessment was prepared for the 1987 Public Inquiry. It consists of several volumes which are being copied especially to meet your request. I have therefore asked our office in Bedford to send the material direct to you at the House of Commons as soon as it is available.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on(a) the number of passengers using the various airports and (b) the revenue raised of increasing the air passenger duty by £5 at Heathrow and Gatwick, and reducing it by £5
  802
  at the regional airports and at Stansted; and how much additional revenue would be raised.

  Mr. Mawhinney
  There are no detailed estimates available, and air passengers duty is not an airport charge. However, work done for the RUCATSE working group suggests that if applied to the whole of 1995 the effect increasing airport charges by £5 at Heathrow and Gatwick, and reducing it by £5 at the regional airports and Stansted, would be to leave passenger numbers al Heathrow unaltered, slightly reduced at Gatwick and al Stansted, and the regional airports for traffic to increase by some 2.5 per cent. It is not possible easily to assess the revenue effects.

  Mr. David Hernandez-Purnell
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the contents of his press statement of 29 April 1994, concerning a constituent of the hon. Member for Woolwich oii abiding by the statute strictly and his subsequent statement on the options open to his Department;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. David Hernandez-Purnell.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Austin-Walker dated 1 December 1994:
  The Minister promised that I would write to you about the matter you raised in your two Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State concerning Mr. David Hernandez-Purnell.
  This has proved to be a difficult case but it does appear that we are now very close to reaching an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez- Purnell on the level of compensation for the property and its development value. That would leave claims under the heading of disturbance to be agreed, or failing agreement to be referred to the Lands Tribunal. The Treasury Solicitor has now written to Mr. Hernandez-Purnell on our behalf offering to settle at a price Mr. Hernandez-Purnell has already suggested subject only to Mr. Hernandez-Purnell agreement to legally completing the sale to the Secretary of State. I understand Mr. Hernandez-Purnell is prepared to proceed on this basis.
  You referred to a press statement by the Secretary of State. I am not aware of any press statement by the Secretary of State on 29 April or any other date in connection with Mr. Hernandez-Purnell's case. Mr. Hernandez-Purnell has invited comment on a statement he quotes in his letter of 13 November addressed to the Treasury Solicitor and which he has, I understand, copied to you. That statement is part of a fuller briefing note which was supplied on or around 29 April to a member of the press at her request by the Highways Agency. I enclose a copy of the full note from which you will see that we are dealing with the question of Mr. Hernandez-Purnell's mortgages. The strict legal position is that the Highways Agency on making an advance payment of compensation to Mr. Hernandez-Purnell (or any one else for that matter) did not, nor does not, have to discharge any existing mortgage before completion. However, in order to facilitate a practical and sensible resolution to that part of the dispute between Mr. Hernandez-Purnell and the Highways Agency, we were prepared to redeem Mr. Hernandez-Purnell's mortgages in this exceptional case. The use of the word "illegal" in briefing already referred to is unfortunate, when what was meant of course was extra statutory.

  National Road Programme
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the parliamentary constituency or
  803
  constituencies in which each scheme in the national road programme lies.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 29 November 1994]: This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Roy Hughes, dated 1 December 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Rail has passed to me your request for a list of parliamentary constituency or constituents for each scheme in the national programme. This is an operational matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
  The enclosed list includes all schemes in the Agency's preparation programme as listed in Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review.

TREASURY

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following have been employed as special advisers in the Treasury during the last five years:

  Name

  Joined

  Left

  A. Ross Goobey

  1 April 1986

  10 April 1991

  W. M. Lightfoot

  1 September 1989

  10 April 1992

  P. W. Robinson

  11 April 1992

  27 May 1993

  D. W. D. Cameron

  11 May 1992

  21 June 1993

  R. Darwell

  8 February 1993

  27 May 1993

  Mrs. A. T. Keswick

  28 May 1993 to date

  D. L. Ruffley

  28 May 1993 to date

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Sports Clubs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of VAT illegally charged by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on sports clubs subscriptions since 1 January 1990 which has been(a) claimed back to date by sports clubs, (b) paid back to date by sports clubs and (c) estimated in total as due back to sports clubs; and if he will provide details for (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise estimated that repayment of VAT on sporting services in respect of the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1994 would amount to some £42.5 million. Between 1 April 1994 and 30 September 1994, £42 million VAT plus £5 million interest was repaid to non-profit-making organisations supplying sporting services.

  To apportion this information between England, Wales and Scotland would involve disproportionate time and expense. The extent to which clubs have passed any of the repayment to their members is not a matter for the Government.

  Building Society Merger
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the proposed merger between the Halifax building society and the Leeds building society; if he proposes to refer the merger to the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading for inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have discussed the proposed merger with representatives of the Halifax building society and the Building Societies Commission, in my capacity as Minister responsible for the building society sector. The decision on whether to refer the proposal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the light of advice from the Director General of Fair Trading, who is currently considering the matter.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Banqueting Rooms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what was the operating surplus or deficit of the banqueting rooms for the last full 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  A net profit of some £230,000 was made from the use of private dining facilities in 1993–94.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee (1) if he will publish the names of organisations that used the banqueting rooms in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available indicating the numbers who are perceived to be(a) political, (b) commercial, (c) charitable and (d) others;

  (2) if he will list the political affiliations of all hon. Members who booked the banqueting rooms in the months of October and November.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  It has not hitherto been the practice to publish information of this nature. The matter is currently being reviewed by the Catering Committee.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Hospitals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made by the task force on listed hospitals formed by his Department and the Department of Health.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The working group on historic hospitals was established by the Department of Health and by English Heritage in Autumn 1992 to provide a forum to identify and assist in resolving problems concerning historic buildings and conservation matters in the NHS. It has commissioned the preparation of good practice guidance for NHS managers in respect of both listed hospitals that will continue in use, and those that will close; this guidance is due for publication at the end of 1994. A study to review the listing of NHS institutions has been commissioned from English Heritage.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to provide information via Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 110.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will announce the television licence fees which will take effect from 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Following a study by Touche Ross, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) announced on 4 November 1993,Official Report, column 309–10, that the Government had decided to link increases in the television licence fee with the retail prices index for the remaining three years of the BBC's current royal charter.

  Licence fee increases are based on the annual RPI figure as at the previous September, in the same way as pensions and other state benefits. Application of this year's RPI figure of 2.2 per cent. for the year to September 1994 to the current unrounded figures produces new rounded totals of £86.50 for a colour licence and £28.50 for a black and white licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force will be laid before the House in due course.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when officials from English Heritage last inspected the riverside building in the County hall complex; and what were their findings on the condition of the building.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 November 1994]: The riverside building at County hall was last visited by English Heritage staff on 15 November 1994. They found the building to be in good condition.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department how many are over the advised payment date (a) by up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94, the Department of National Heritage paid over 85 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of 806
  receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for amendments to the Cinema Act 1910 in relation to access to cinemas for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955 make detailed provisions for securing safety in cinemas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced on 24 November a package of measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people, including a right of access to goods and services.

PRIME MINISTER

  Top Salaries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking, other than exhortation, to make it easier for shareholders to influence the size of the salaries and perks of those at the top of British industry.

  The Prime Minister
  Shareholders already have the ability to exercise influence—for example, by raising questions at the annual general meeting or, in the case of institutional holdings, by exerting pressure behind the scenes.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Standards of Public Life Committee
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now publish the remuneration of the board members and chairman of the Standing Committee into Standards of Public Life.

  The Prime Minister
  The chairman will receive no remuneration from public funds for his work on the committee. Three members are already in receipt of a salary from public funds and will therefore not receive any further remuneration for their work on the committee. The other six members of the committee will receive an honorarium of £1,000 per month until the first report has been published, and a per diem attendance rate of £155 after that. Their travel and subsistence expenses will be met.

  The administrative and support resources for the Nolan committee will be drawn from the Office of Public Service and Science Vote (19 Vote 1).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further amendments to the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990 are presently proposed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under this order, a number of companies which generated or supplied electricity before the electricity industry was vested are exempt from the requirement for a licence to generate or supply electricity for a transitional period, which ends on 31 March 1995.

  Following consultation with the electricity industry and others, I have now decided that these transitional exemptions should be extended until 31 March 1998. These exemptions would continue, as now, to be limited to the generating capacity or customer base supplied before vesting. This should not, however, be read as meaning that these companies will necessarily continue to be exempt after 1998. That will be considered in the period leading up to 1998, when the market in electricity supply will become fully competitive.

  I will lay an order bringing this amendment into effect early next year. My officials are presently considering a number of other possible amendments to the order. I shall announce our decision on these in due course.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the future of electricity supply from foreign sources.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The position in relation to the French interconnector—the only present source of foreign electricity supplies—was set out in the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal" (Cm 2235). Proposals for further interconnectors are a commercial matter for the electricity companies, subject to their obtaining any necessary consents.

  Interreg 2
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of projected annual expenditure under Interreg 2(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Gwynedd, (c) Dyfed and (d) Kent for each year in which the programme is to run.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Allocations for the period from 1994 to 1999 are as follows, in mecu at 1994 prices:

  Mecu

  Northern Ireland

  66.9

  Gwynedd and Dyfed

  13.5

  Kent and East Sussex

  28.3

  Qualifying expenditure may extend until 2001. Annual allocations have not yet been settled.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many occasions in the last year he has received a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and(a) agreed its recommendations and (b) deferred a decision.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1 November 1993, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received 808
  14 reports, including one not yet published, from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Where adverse reports have been published, he has accepted the MMC's findings. In one case during this period—The Daily Mail and General Trust plc/T. Bailey Forman Ltd.—the MMC report has been published and the final decision deferred pending further consideration of possible remedies. Before that period, there have been other examples of consultation on possible remedies after publication, notably on the MMC reports on the supply of gas, and on the distribution of newspapers.

  Nuclear Power
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the result of his review into the future of nuclear power generation.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 19 October,Official Report, column 239.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what share of the fossil fuel levy is received by(a) renewable sources of energy, (b) Nuclear Electric and (c) Scottish Nuclear.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  For details of payments from the fossil fuel levy to renewable generators and Nuclear Electric, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 12 July 1994,Official Report, column 518. Scottish Nuclear does not receive payments from the levy.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the purpose of the fossil fuel levy as paid to Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The fossil fuel levy finances the premium element of the price paid by the regional electricity companies for the electricity that they are required to purchase under the non-fossil fuel obligation. In Nuclear Electric's case, the levy payments cover the above-market costs of generating nuclear power. Together with revenues from sales of electricity at market prices, levy payments enable Nuclear Electric to cover the full costs of generating electricity from its stations, including operating costs, depreciation and provisions for the so-called "back end" liabilities.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of Nuclear Electric using the fossil fuel levy to help with its cash flow.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The existing arrangements to enable the full cost of nuclear power in the United Kingdom to be met, including the fossil fuel levy, are being assessed as part of the Government's review of the future prospects for nuclear power.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the purpose of the electricity interconnector with France.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The interconnector was built for mutual system support, and to trade electricity when one country could supply it more cheaply than the other.

  Riot Control Equipment
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the date and (b) the countries involved in the instances during the last 10 years when export licences have been granted for (i) riot shields, (ii) CS gas, (iii) batons and (iv) other riot control equipment.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This question could be answered in respect of controlled goods only at disproportionate cost.

  Building Society Merger
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to refer the proposed merger between the Halifax and the Leeds Permanent building societies to the Office of Fair Trading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading at the Office of Fair Trading is currently investigating this proposed merger and he will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in due course. A decision on whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be taken once that advice is received.

  Regional Assistance, North-West
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column, 208, if he will list those development and intermediate areas in the North-West where applications for regional selective assistance have been refused.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is listed in the following table:

  Travel to work area

  Number rejected (1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Accrington and Rossendale

  4

  Barrow-in-Furness

  4

  Blackburn

  2

  Bolton and Bury

  5

  Liverpool

  23

  Manchester

  28

  Oldham

  3

  Rochdale

  3

  Widnes and Runcorn

  5

  Wigan and St. Helens

  19

  Wirral and Chester

  12

  Workington

  5

  Project location undecided

  10

  Total

  123

  Motor Vehicle Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support or advice was given to the manufacturers of the Robin Reliant prior to the company going into receivership.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department was advised, in confidence, of the decision to place Reliant in the hands of the receiver. My officials are in close contact with the receiver about the prospects for the business.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those United 810
  Kingdom-owned car manufacturers in 1987 and at the current date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the beginning of 1987, there were 12 United Kingdom-owned manufacturers producing cars. These were: Aston Martin Lagonda, Bristol, Caterham, Ginetta, Jaguar, Marcos, Morgan, Reliant, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Rover Group, TVR Engineering and Westfield.

  Since then, Aston Martin Lagonda and Jaguar have been acquired by Ford and Rover by BMW. The others remain in the United Kingdom ownership.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of coal were imported by the nationalised electricity power generators in each year between 1980 and denationalisation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The amount of coal imported by the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board is shown below. The Department has no records of coal imported by the power producers before 1983 or of any imports by the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board and the Northern Ireland Electricity Service.

  Year

  Thousand tones

  19831

  1,020

  19841

  52

  19851

  2,656

  19861

  1,186

  19871

  1,358

  19882

  1,973

  19892,3

  1,963

  1 Central Electricity Generating Board only.

  2 Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board.

  3 1989 was the last full year before denationalisation.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of British Coal Enterprise following the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]:The Government and British Coal are currently exploring options for the services provided by British Coal Enterprise. No final decisions have yet been taken about its future.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the Office of Fair Trading to institute an inquiry into the practices of insurance companies in respect of life assurance premiums for(a) heterosexuals and (b) people who have had a negative test for HIV.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Association of British Insurers has recommended to its members that they do not ask questions about negative HIV tests on life and health insurance proposal forms. I have placed a copy of the association's press release in the Library of the House.

  Japanese-owned Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of Japanese-owned plutonium exists in(a) unreprocessed nuclear fuel awaiting reprocessing

  811
  and (b) in store after reprocessing, under safeguards at Sellafield.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The stocks of civil plutonium held by British Nuclear Fuels plc at its Sellafield site were published in the annual plutonium figures for 1993–94, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House. Further details of the ownership of the stocks are an operational matter for BNFL.

  Post Office
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to give more commercial freedom to the publicly owned Post Office.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) on 23 November,Official Report, column 579.

  Floating Production Systems
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement in connection with his proposals of July 1994 to establish a working group on floating production systems for use in oil fields in the North sea and the Atlantic; if he will list the names and positions of those appointed to the working group of floating production systems; what estimate he has made of the development costs of the Foinaven and Schiehallion oil fields to the west of Shetland; and what percentage of this work he assesses will be allocated to domestically based support services.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 29 November 1994]: The working group on floating production systems has been set up and will report to Ministers by the end of the year. The industry members are listed below.

  The operator responsible—BP—for the development of the Foinaven and Schiehallion oil fields to the west of Shetland has estimated development costs for Foinaven to be £550 million and has estimated that around 70 per cent. of this expenditure will be allocated to the United Kingdom. Schiehallion is not yet far enough advanced to estimate development costs.

  Floating production systems working group industry membership

  Name

  Mr. Mike Baugh

  Hamilton

  Mr. Martin Fielding

  Amerada Hess

  Mr. Chris Grey

  Conoco

  Mr. Alan Hunt

  Shell

  Mr. John Hutton

  Texaco

  Dr. Rob Kenison

  BP

  Dr. Reg Potter

  Marathon

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts have so far been allocated to United Kingdom-based companies in connection with research into, and development of, floating production systems.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 29 November 1994]: A large number of R and D projects have been sponsored by oil companies and the Government, associated with floating production systems. However, many of these projects are not unique to floating production systems. They also apply to other aspects of offshore technology so it is not possible to assign numbers in the way that hon. Lady requested.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those local authorities and private and voluntary organisations currently in receipt of grant aid from the Konver programme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 30 November 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister for Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on 10 December 1993, Official Report, column 426. The lists of grant awards under the Knover I programme available in the Library of the House show the main sponsor for each project only. I shall write to the hon. Member with a full list of project sponsors.

  Overseas Debt
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on support for exports to countries which have rescheduled their debts and have re-established their creditworthiness.

  Mr. Needham
  Following a review of its risk assessment systems for those markets, the Export Credits Guarantee Department will now be adopting normal underwriting criteria to assess applications for support from United Kingdom exporters, the principal criterion being the ability of the overseas buyer or borrower to meet it debts on time. The main consequence of applying normal criteria will be to broaden the range of exports eligible for support, and significant reductions in premium rates on a number of markets. The Government will also be pursuing an initiative in international forums to ensure that the prime focus of export credit and other financial support in such markets will be upon goods and services which will foster and sustain their economic rehabilitation.

WALES

  Welsh Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish the district auditor's report on the Welsh Health Promotion Authority.

  Mr. Richards
  This report was published by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales on 8 August 1994. Copies can be obtained from the authority.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.
  813
  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94, the Welsh Office paid 87 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Staff Commission for Wales and the local authority associations in relation to the carrying over of existing staff to the new authorities on 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) held an annual review meeting with the staff commission on 14 November: staff transfer arrangements were among the matters discussed. My officials maintain close contact with the Staff Commission and local authority associations, and are discussing with them how best to give effect to the guidance which I issued to the commission in August.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for funding the new residuary body for Wales by(a) precept and (b) other means.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have decided that the residuary body should be funded by means of borrowing under a supplementary credit approval in 1994–95 and 1995–96. It would be funded by levies on local authorities in 1996–97 and any subsequent years. It would not have any power to issue a precept. I wrote to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 2 November informing him of my decision. This letter was copied to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from(a) local authorities and (b) other organisations in relation to the responsibilities for examining health and safety standards in houses in multiple occupation with respect to (i) self-regulation and independent regulation and (ii) duties of environmental health officers and fire officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received representations from the all-Wales chief environmental health officers panel, the Wales house in multiple occupation network, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, South Wales, Cardiff city council and Llanelli borough council about these issues as part of the interdepartmental review on fire safety legislation and enforcement. The responses are currently being considered.

  Incentive Prescribing Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those general practices approved to take part in an incentive prescribing scheme, which have(a) commenced and (b) not commenced their participation.

  Mr. Redwood
  Prescribing incentive schemes have now been approved in seven family health services 814
  authorities. Participation in schemes is a matter for local agreement and details of the numbers of participating practices are not held centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the application of value-added school league tables to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am committed to the principle that a readily understood measure of added value should be included in secondary school performance tables covering LEA-maintained, grant-maintained and independent schools. Work is in hand to develop such measures.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the head teachers and chairs of governors of grant-maintained schools concerning the supply of information to local authorities for the purpose of drawing up value added school league tables.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. I look to all concerned to collaborate on the important issue of how to show the extent to which schools add value to pupil performance.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the chairman of the court of governors at the National Museum of Wales, concerning(a) the expansion and relocation of the Wales Industrial and Maritime Museum, inclusive of an Imax cinema and (b) the funding of a private sector free-standing Imax cinema; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have had no discussions with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation regarding proposals to develop the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum; in May the chairman did briefly explain to me the aims of the Imax venture arid how it might be associated with educational or museum institutions in the Cardiff bay area.

  In June, my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) received a presentation from the National Museum of Wales on its corporate plan, including proposals to develop the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum and an Imax theatre.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of special advisers employed by my Department in the last five years are as follows:

  Name

  Date joined

  Date left

  Mr. R. Richards

  5 November 1990

  14 December 1990

  Mr. M. McManus

  11 November 1992

  27 May 1993

  Mr. H. Williams

  18 October 1993

  (still in post)

  815
  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. The salary spine of 34 points ranges from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Police Authority Revenue
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for police authority revenue spending in 1995–96.

  Mr. Redwood
  I propose to make £300.7 million available from total standard spending in Wales to fund police services in 1995–96. This sum comprises £153.7 million in cash-limited police grant to be paid by the Home Secretary and £147.0 million in standard spending assessments. It represents an overall increase of 6 per cent. on police revenue budgets for 1994–95. The sums for each police authority are set out in the following table:

  Police grant £ millions

  SSA £ millions

  Total £ millions

  Dyfed-Powys

  22.5

  21.7

  44.2

  Gwent

  24.1

  23.3

  47.4

  North Wales

  32.2

  30.6

  62.8

  South Wales

  74.8

  71.4

  146.2

  The Welsh Office is today writing to each of the police authorities in Wales to consult them on their provisional standard spending assessment for 1995–96.

  It is essential that police authorities budget wisely and do not impose an unreasonable burden on council taxpayers. I therefore propose provisional capping principles to inform their budget decisions.

  I will make my final decisions on capping principles in the light of budgets set by police authorities.

  I am still considering my capping proposals for county and district councils in Wales and propose to announce provisional capping principles for these authorities in mid-December, when provisional county and district SSAs are announced.

  Copies of the consultation letter will be place in the Library of the House.

  Quangos
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how members of quangos to which he is responsible for appointing members currently serve as councillors representing(a) the Conservative party, (b) the Labour party and (c) the Liberal Democrat party.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer Friday 25 November]: The information requested is as follows:

  At 1 September 1994, 31 members of public bodies appointed by me were serving district or county councillors. These represented:

  Conservative: 3

  Labour: 17

  Liberal Democrat: 0

  Independent: 11

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Construction Projects
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the construction projects funded by Overseas Development Administration aid and awarded in whole or in part to United Kingdom construction companies in 1992–93 and 1993–94, and in each case stating the name of the United Kingdom construction company, the value of the contracts awarded to that company and the location, by country, of the project.

  Mr. Baldry
  There is no central historical record of aid-funded construction projects. Contracts for such projects are normally negotiated and let by the recipient Governments. A new reporting mechanism is now being established, but at present the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to provide information via Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The CCTA Government information service was launched at the consultative meeting on information super-highways on 21 November. The service is designed to help Departments to make United Kingdom Government public information available electronically via the Internet, using the world wide web—WWW—hypertext information servers.

  The aims of the service are to support the objectives of the citizens charter and open government; publish Government information; and provide a means by which Government Departments can gain experience of publishing information on Internet.

  The Office of Public Service and Science has been at the forefront in exploiting the service. The hon. Member can access, via Internet, information on the citizens charter unit, the open government code of practice, a directory of Government Ministers and Whips, and HMSO's information technology catalogue. CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, is talking to other parts of the Cabinet Office, and further information will become available in due course.

  CCTA's booklet for Internet users, "CCTA Government Information Service: How to access information", is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will invite Departments and agencies to advise Ministers if they intend to use buildings inaccessible to disabled staff or members of the public.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  As I informed the House on 21 November, I have already asked my officials to conduct a review of my Department's buildings, so that we know which buildings are accessible and which are not.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not generally available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. Based on a sample survey carried out during 1993–94, the Cabinet Office paid 78 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days. HMSO achieved 80 per cent., and COI 83 per cent.

  Secret Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) top secret and (b) secret files his Department holds.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the Cabinet Office can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Nations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what legal basis the United Nations protects the civilian population in the safe areas in cases where their inhabitants have attacked other territory.

  Mr. David Davis
  The mandate of the United Nations Protection Force—UNPROFOR—under Security Council resolution 836 enables it to deter attacks against the safe areas referred to in Security Council resolution 824. In doing so, UNPROFOR is authorised by resolution 836, acting in self-defence, to take the necessary measures, including the use of force, in reply to bombardments against the safe areas or to armed incursion into them.

  These provisions apply, even, where offensive action has been undertaken from within the safe areas.

  Sudan
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he proposes to show her Majesty's Government's disapproval of the human rights record of the Sudanese regime; and if he will further reduce the British diplomatic presence in Sudan.

  Mr. David Davis
  Monitoring human right abuses and raising concerns about these with the Sudanese authorities 818
  will remain one of the principal tasks of Her Majesty's embassy in Khartoum. We have no plans to reduce the number of staff there.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudanese regime about the continued restrictions on the liberty of the former Prime Minister, Sadiq A1 Mandi.

  Mr. David Davis
  Her Majesty's embassy in Khartoum made representations to the Sudanese authorities during Sadiq Al Mandi's detention for three weeks earlier this year. Sadiq Al Mandi was released on 3 July. The embassy will continue to monitor his treatment by the authorities.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in Central and Latin America have been the subject of arms exports licence refusals in 1993 on the grounds of internal oppression or regional security.

  Mr. Davis
  The only country in central and Latin America to which applications for arms export licences were refused in 1993 on the grounds of internal oppression or regional security is Argentina, to which we maintain an embargo on military sales in the light of the events of 1982 and the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, diplomatic wing paid 95 per cent. and the Overseas Development Administration 88 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Kashmir
  Mrs Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has had regarding the torture and execution of human right; activists in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have had no reports of the torture or execution of human rights activists in Kashmir.
  819
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has had of Kashmiris suffering human rights abuses at the hands of Indian troops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are concerned by reports from international human rights groups of human rights abuses committed by the Indian security forces in Kashmir. We have regularly raised these concerns with the Indian Government.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will call for(a) international investigations of human rights violations in Kashmir, (b) international humanitarian agencies to be allowed direct and independent access to the region, (c) the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for murdering and torturing Kashmiri people and (d) the right to self-determination for Kashmiris as promised by the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have consistently urged the Indian Government to allow independent human rights groups access to Kashmir. We are encouraged that they have allowed a number of such groups to visit Kashmir this year. We have also urged them to ensure that security force members are subject to the rule of law. We shall continue to support efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement in Kashmir.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The special advisers to this Department are Mr. Maurice Fraser and Mr. Michael Maclay.

  On 1 March 1989, Mr. Maurice Fraser joined the Department and is still employed here. On 1 November 1989, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) joined the Department; he left on 15 December 1990. On 7 January 1991, Mr. Edward Bickham joined the Department; he left on 9 July 1993. On 19 July 1993, Mr Michael Maclay joined the Department and is still employed here.

  With regard to salary, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 November, Official Report, column 413.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas students are now studying in the United Kingdom in the higher and further education sectors; what the numbers were before the introduction of full cost fees in 1980; how many students are currently receiving Government scholarships; and how the United Kingdom's record on receiving overseas students compares to that of its competitors.

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of overseas students studying in the United Kingdom in both the higher and further education sectors in 1979–80 was some 83,000. The number in 1992–93 was 99,700, an all-time high. In 1993–94 21,000 students from overseas studying in the United Kingdom were benefiting from official support 820
  under a variety of British Government scholarship and award programmes. These included 3,043 students holding British Chevening scholarships funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  According to available figures, the United Kingdom is fourth in the global league table of countries receiving overseas students with 92,000, against the United States, 420,000, France, 136,000 and Germany, 100,000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cross-border Barriers
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in dismantling the barriers to free movement across the border.

  Sir John Wheeler
  All closure orders have been rescinded. More than 40 previously closed crossing points are presently open to traffic. The great majority should be reopened within a matter of months.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the potential for tourism in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Tourism in Northern Ireland clearly has the potential to contribute significantly to the local economy. The Northern Ireland tourist board is working closely with the tourism industry to ensure that this potential is turned into reality.

  The announcement last week of a £6.8 million joint marketing initiative by the tourism authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, together with the private sector, will do much to capitalise on new opportunities.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to improve cross-border co-operation in tourism.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern Ireland tourist board works closely with its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Bord Failte, jointly to market the island of Ireland as a quality tourist destination. Both Governments announced last week that this co-operation will be further developed and expanded.

  Social Policy
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's social policy strategy.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government remain committed to addressing the social needs of the people of Northern Ireland, in particular through targeting social need initiative, which is aimed at directing resources to the most disadvantaged areas and people.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments concerning the Downing street declaration.
  821
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about furthering the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position over the ceasefire.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Ulster.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) earlier today.

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement as to what initiatives the Government took to effect the extradition of Brendan Smyth following the serving on the Gardai of extradition warrants by the RUC in April 1993.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 21 November,Official Report, columns 37–38.

  Hualon Project
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current position and future of the Hualon project in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  All necessary approvals for the project are in place and further progress and the release of the first tranche of IDB money depends on Hualon fulfilling certain obligations contained in the agreement with the Industrial Development Board.

  The British Apparel and Textile Confederation lodged an appeal on 30 November with the European Court of Justice.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now review his decision to proceed with grant payments to the Hualon Corporation.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has recently reviewed and confirmed his decision, the implementation of which will depend upon the fulfilment by Hualon of certain preconditions.

  We have no plans for a further review.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of the Hualon Corporation.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  On 9 June 1994.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding aid to the Hualon Corporation.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Hualon project, which will make a major reduction in unemployment, was the subject of a lengthy and detailed appraisal before the decision to offer assistance was taken.

  The advice of independent consultants was obtained and the project has received all the necessary approvals from HMG and the EC. To date no assistance has been paid, and none will be until certain pre-conditions are satisfied.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to the formation of an environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  All the functions of the Department of Environment environment service are currently the subject of a prior options study. The Government will decide whether or not any proposals for change in the implementation of environmental policy in Northern Ireland should be made when the results of the study are known. The outcome of the study is likely to be announced early in 1995.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the change in numbers of unemployed since December 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest available seasonally adjusted figures, for October 1994, show that the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 11,500 since December 1992.

  Paramilitaries
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the moves that have been made by the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries to withdraw the threat of military action against people whom they have forced into exile and who are still unable to return to their homes.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Such actions are incompatible with the disavowal of the use of violence for political purposes.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet members of the former loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have no plans to do so.

  Examination Results
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the reasons for the relative success of children living in Northern Ireland in GCSE and A-level exams in comparison with other parts of the Untied Kingdom.

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland pupils entered for GCSE and A-levels have a good record of success. I believe that the motivation of pupils, parental support and the fact that we have highly professional and dedicated teaching staff are the key elements which have contributed to those high standards.

  I have made no assessment of the reasons for differences with other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively;

  (2) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were

  823
  paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94 the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments paid 95 per cent. of their bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Mr. Jonathan Caine was appointed special adviser by my predecessor in December 1991. He resigned in March 1992 and I re-appointed him as my special adviser in June 1992.

  No other special advisers have joined or left the Northern Ireland Office in the last five years.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: My Department employs one special adviser.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is the chairman of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board; when he was appointed to that position; when he is expected to retire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: Mr. John B. McGuckian was appointed chairman of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board on 1 January 1992, having served a period of 15 months as a member of the board. His term of office as chairman is due to expire on 31 December 1994.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy not to 824
  appoint to public office individuals described in statements resulting from hearings by the Lord Chief Justice and other Lords of Appeal as being disingenuous in their dealings with the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In relation to public appointments, the prime consideration for Ministers and Departments are an individual's ability or potential to contribute to the work of a particular body and the need for each public body to have the range of experience and skills necessary to carry out its functions.

  An individual's background and overall conduct are factors taken in to account before an appointment is made.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement setting out the background to the case presented in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal by lawyers representing the Inland Revenue in the case relating to Mr. John McGuckian; what sums of money were involved in this case; what was the outcome; what plans he has to review recent decisions relating to the Hualon Corporation taken by Mr. McGuckian as chairman of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Fund as a result of this case; what previous cases, and involving what sums, have been brought against Mr. McGuckian for non-payment of taxes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: Mr. McGuckian's personal tax affairs are not matters for my right hon. and learned Friend. Nor do they have anything to do with decisions relating to the Hualon Corporation.

HEALTH

  North-West Hospitals
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of employees, plus the number of volunteers currently assisting, at each hospital in the north-west; and what percentage the latter forms of the former.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of employees is collected by management unit—that is, by national health service trust or directly managed unit—rather than by hospital; and information on volunteers is not available centrally.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the net ingredient cost of(a) temazepam, (b) zopiclone and (c) all other benzodiazepines in the United Kingdom and each NHS region and family health service authority area for 1993–94;.and if he will express the net ingredient cost figure as expenditure per head of population in each such area.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the NHS Estates moved into accommodation off Boar lane, Leeds; what consideration was given to moving
  825
  into Quarry house, Leeds; what was the cost of the move; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The initial relocation plan was that NHS Estates would relocate to Quarry house with the national health service executive. Because of design and other changes during the construction of Quarry house, there was not enough room to accommodate all the posts concerned, and separate accommodation was taken for the agency in Trevelyan square, Boar lane, Leeds. The transitional costs of the move and the costs of fitting out Trevelyan square were £1.93 million.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of the review of the NHS Estates; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The first review of NHS Estates Agency has recently been completed. I have today placed a summary of the review's findings in the Library.

  Professional Misconduct
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that medical practitioners found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct be suspended with immediate effect; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  It is a matter for the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council to decide whether a doctor is fit to continue practising after he has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

  Confidentiality
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will institute an inquiry into medical confidentiality in respect of members of the medical profession whose medical or psychiatric condition might result in damage to patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she gives to health authorities and NHS trusts on equal opportunities policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service authorities and trusts are expected to comply with the aims and goals of the NHS executive's "Opportunity 2000" programme, and of "Ethnic minority staff in the NHS: a programme of action". Copies of those programmes are available in the Library. In addition, the General Whitley Council has made agreements promoting equal opportunities which apply to all staff employed on national terms and conditions of service.

  NHS Managers Conference
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was responsible for inviting the NHS managers to attend a meeting at the Belfry on 5 to 7 December; what is the projected cost of the exercise; and from which vote the expenditure will be drawn.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive intended to hold a working conference at the Belfry on 6 to 7 December. The event was cancelled in August.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals were used for the care of mentally ill people before the introduction of care in the community; how many of these properties have been sold; what have been the total sums raised through the sale of such property and land; how much of this has been re-invested into care in the community; how many sales are still pending; what is the estimated value of such sales when realised; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Care in the community of mentally ill people has been steadily introduced since the 1960s. The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department expects to have concluded ids consideration of the second report of the National Audit Office on the implementation of community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that the Audit Commission, which monitors the implementation of community care by local authorities, plans to publish its second bulletin on progress with community care shortly.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she proposes to make an announcement on the future of the Government's community care policy.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have today announced the Government's plan to bring the total extra resources for community care to more than £2.5 billion by 1997–98.

  I am also today publishing indicative allocations showing each English social services authority's share of the special transitional grant for community care in 1995–96. As last year, the whole of the STG is being distributed on the basis of personal social services standard spending assessments. Authorities have until 13 January 1995 to make representations about their proposed allocations. Copies of the circular are being placed in the Library. The total STG for 1995–96 will, as previously announced, be £647.6 million.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she intends to retain the 85 per cent. condition associated with the special transitional grant for community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government remain fully committed to a flourishing independent sector able to offer diversity, choice and value for money. We will therefore retain the condition on the special transitional grant for community care in 1995–96 whereby authorities must spend 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element—some £440 million in all—on community care services in the independent sector. The condition will be framed in a way that such independent sector spending in 1995–96 must be in addition to previous such spending in 1994–95 and 1993–94 plus one half of such spending in 1992–93.

  Rosemary Storrs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who authorised the ex-gratia payment to Rosemary Storrs, the former information director of Wessex regional health authority in October 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  Although the payment was approved by the Wessex regional health authority, appropriate authorisation was not sought from my Department, and the payment was therefore ultra vires.
  827
  Such payments are in principle recoverable and the authority must consider, in the light of legal advice, whether recovery action is feasible or cost effective.

  Toxoplasmosis
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to reduce the incidence of toxoplasmosis; what is her policy towards the testing of pregnant women for toxoplasmosis; and what studies into toxoplasmosis are currently supported with public funding.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health produces a leaflet entitled "While you are Pregnant - safe eating and how to avoid infection from food and animals" which contains information on avoiding toxoplasmosis. Copies of the leaflet will be placed in the Library. The Health Education Authority produces its pregnancy book which also contains information on toxoplasmosis and which is provided to women when they attend hospital antenatal clinics; copies of this book are available in the Library. Additionally, the Department provides core funding to the Toxoplasmosis trust under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  The decision to test a pregnant woman who may have been exposed to toxoplasmosis for evidence of infection must be made on a case-by-case basis. In the light of current scientific knowledge, a routine screening programme cannot be justified. Screening for toxoplasmosis in pregnancy is not a standard procedure in the United Kingdom. The significance of the test, the natural history of the disease and the efficacy of the treatment are all surrounded by uncertainty. As for any screening programme, the benefits conferred by screening must clearly outweigh the risks.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is currently funding research into "Seriodiagnosis of reactivating toxoplasmosis: use of cyst antigens" at St. George's Hospital medical school, London, and "Protection against toxoplasmosis: an alternative target for vaccination" at the university of Strathclyde. Universities and medical schools which are supported by public funding may also be funding research into toxoplasmosis.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what response she is making to toxoplasmosis week.

  Mr. Sackville
  We welcome this initiative, which we hope will raise awareness about toxoplasmosis and how to avoid catching it, particularly in pregnant women, reinforcing advice given as part of antenatal care.

  Community Clinics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that(a) purchasing authorities retain and, where necessary, develop community clinics and (b) provider units provide a service which complements that provided by general practitioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for general practitioners and purchasing authorities to assess local health needs and to secure the most appropriate services to meet those needs.

  Financial Information Project Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the transfer of £300,000 to Financial Information Project Ltd. has been repaid.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority, which is taking action to recover the loan. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, regional chairman for details.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by her Department and Government agencies answerable to her Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 November 1994, c. 408–09]: I regret that my previous reply should have read: "Disaggregrated information of this nature is not available. Any such costs which may arise are covered by the hospitality expenditure of the Department which is included in the running costs sum published in the annual report, copies of which are available in the Library."

  South Birmingham Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order an inquiry into the payments made to the director of finance of South Birmingham health authority and his subsequent employment as a consultant to the national health service executive at Chipping Norton; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  No. The Public Accounts Committee in its 36th report fully considered the affairs of South Birmingham health authority and the position of the former director of finance. Copies of the report and the Government's response are available in the Library.

  Midwives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions she gave for midwives to meet out-patients in reception areas to comply with patient charter standards.

  Mr. Malone
  None. The way in which women are received in out-patients clinics is a matter for local arrangement. The patients charter standard on the named midwife is that each pregnant woman shall have a named qualified midwife allocated to her.

  Seriously Incapacitated Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide guidelines to health authorities on their responsibilities to provide continuing care for seriously incapacitated patients, in the light of the findings by the health service commissioner—case Number 1 E 62/93–94—and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Draft guidance on "NHS responsibilities for meeting long-term health care needs", copies of which are available in the Library, was issued for consultation on 12 August.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (1) guidelines are issued by her Department regarding the procedure of consultation exercises on the future of hospital services; to which authorities these guidelines are issued; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will list the amount of time allocated for each consultation exercise on the future of hospital services that have taken place in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) how many consultation exercises have been held on the future of hospital services in the last year for which figures are available; if she will list the regional health authorities involved; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance (EL(90)185) to health authorities in September 1990 reminded them of the need to consult potential users of services as an integral part of the management process. District health authorities are required by the Community Health Council Regulations 1985, as amended, to consult the relevant community health council on proposals which would result in substantial changes to services. Changes may be made without consultation if the authority has expressly decided that, in the interest of the health service, a decision has to be taken without allowing time for consultation. Except in such cases, sufficient time should be allowed for views to be taken and advice given. Consultations are a matter for local health authorities; information on numbers and duration is not available centrally. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Employment Practices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to prevent the re-employment as consultants by the NHS of NHS trust directors who have left or been terminated for unacceptable professional standards;

  (2) what action she has taken, or plans to take to ensure, that directors and managers of regional health authorities and NHS trusts who have been involved in improper, dishonest or incompetent practices, cannot be further employed either directly or as consultants to other health authorities or NHS trusts.

  Mr. Malone
  None. It is for the individual employer to use its normal recruitment procedures, which will involve references from previous employers, to ensure that prospective consultants and staff are suitable for the job concerned. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29 November,Official Report, column 590, on the employment of consultants.

  Paramedical Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to disallow NHS trusts from charging existing or potential staff for training in paramedical skills.

  Mr. Sackville
  Funding arrangements for paramedic training are a matter for local trusts to determine in conjunction with their purchasing health authorities.

  Financial Interests
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require all members of health 830
  authorities and trusts to publish in public registers any relevant financial interests.

  Mr. Malone
  The "Code of Conduct and Accountability" requires chairmen and board members to declare any private interests that might be material and relevant to national health service business. Such information should then be recorded in board minutes and entered into a register which is available to the public. Copies of the code of conduct are available in the Library.

  Cornwall Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Remond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has made a decision on the payment of libel lawsuit fees in the Cornwall Healthcare trust case; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  No. The matter is still under consideration.

  John Gunn
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when John Gunn was first appointed to a health authority/trust; and if she will list his subsequent appointments or reappointments.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no record of a John Gunn holding any non-executive appointment with a national health service authority or trust.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health what is the level of spending per head of population on national health service provision in each health district in England and Wales.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the then Minister of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 26 May, 1994,Official Report column 305. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hepetitis C
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliac patients are known to have contracted hepatitis C as a consequence of contaminated blood; how many are known to have died; what representations she has received from relatives; how she has replied; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures are not available centrally for haemophilia patients who have contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood, or for those who have died. I understand from the United Kingdom haemophilia directors that, of 126 haemophilia patients known to have died in 1993, 12 showed the cause of death as liver disease, of which hepatitis C may have been the cause. Some representations have been received seeking payments to haemophilia patients who may have been infected with hepatitis C. We have responded that the Government have no plans to make such payments.

  Consultants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she plans to reduce the disparity in the number of consultants per head of population between regions, with particular reference to Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  There are no central plans for modifying the number of consultants between regions. It is a matter for each employing body to determine the number of consultants needed in each specialty in the light of local needs and competing priorities.

  Limited Drug List
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated total saving for each stage in respect of the introduction of the limited drug list.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to produce estimates which separate the impact of the selected list scheme from other factors which influence the size of the drugs bill.

  NHS Employees' Complaints
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to allow national health service employees to bring to the attention of community health councils their concerns about services and patient care without the threat of disciplinary action being taken against them; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive's "Guidance to staff on relations with the public and the media: EL(93)51" clearly sets out the rights and duties of staff when raising issues of concern about health care matters and shows how employers may ensure these rights and duties are met. The guidance makes it plain that employees who raise their concerns in accordance with the guidance are not to be penalised in any way for doing so. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  NHS and NHS Trust Directors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to render NHS and NHS trust directors liable to surcharge.

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give, by ambulance authority in England, the number of patients who died in 1993 following ambulance delays outside patients charter limits.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  Patients (Failed Appointments)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the approximate percentage of patients failing to show up, without giving notice, for appointments with(a) consultants and (b) other hospital doctors in (i) each general hospital in the South Thames region, (ii) West Middlesex University hospital and (iii) teaching hospitals in London north of the River Thames.
  832
  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is in "Outpatients and Ward Attenders, England, Financial Year 1993–94" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in her Department, how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months respectively;

  (2) how many of the bills paid by her Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993, the Department of Health paid 87.1 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the special advisers employed by her Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left her Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Sackville
  The special advisers employed by the Department over the last five years are:

  Name

  Mrs. T Keswick

  January 1989 to November 1990

  Mrs. L Campey

  December 1990 to April 1992

  Mrs. K Ramsay

  December 1990 to April 1992

  Mr. R Marsh

  June 1991 to April 1992 and from April 1992 to the present day

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are however normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this.

  Kidney Donor Register
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she proposes to take to publicise the new kidney donor register; and what budgetary provision she has made for this.
  833
  Mr. Sackville
  We are presently considering the next phase of publicity in support of the national health service organ donor register.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific grants and capital resources she is making available to local authorities for the personal social services for 1995–96.

  Mr. Bowis
  Specific grants will again be available in 1995–96 for mental illness services—£47.3 million—HIV and AIDS—£13.4 million—alcohol and drugs misuse—£2.5 million—guardian ad litem and reporting officers—£6.2 million—and social services training—£34.6 million. The mental illness grant will increase by £11.3 million which will be targeted on people with severe mental illness. Each grant will continue to support a maximum of 70 per cent. of total expenditure.

  Annual capital guidelines of £124.3 million will be distributed to local authorities. Supplementary credit

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances and sheep annual premium expenditure 1985–1993

  Year

  HLCA £ million

  Percentage change on previous year

  SAP £ million

  Percentage change on previous year

  1985

  37.9

  —

  27.2

  —

  1986

  42.9

  +13.2

  19.4

  -28.7

  1987

  42.8

  -0.2

  23.9

  +23.2

  1988

  43.5

  +1.6

  24.4

  +2.1

  1989

  45.1

  +3.7

  28.5

  +16.8

  1990

  48.1

  +6.7

  40.3

  +41.4

  1991

  56.1

  +17.7

  65.3

  +62.0

  1992

  57.0

  +1.6

  96.2

  +47.3

  1993

  50.7

  -11.1

  99.1

  +3.0

  Highland Area Supplement
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will produce figures for the value of the special highland area supplement for the years 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The value of the HLCA supplements paid in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area are unchanged since 1992. For sheep the supplement is 64p on top of the rate paid to hardy breed sheep in the severely disadvantaged areas. For cows in the severely disadvantaged areas the supplement varies according to the grading of the farm. For grade A farms, the supplement is £3.05 per cow, for grade B, £11.59 per cow and for grade C, £15.86 per cow.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total subsidies to the less-favoured areas for each year since 1985, inclusive; and if he will indicate what the change was between successive years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Agricultural livestock subsidies paid exclusively to the less-favoured areas are the hill livestock compensatory allowances and the sheep annual premium supplement. Expenditure for both is set out in the following table:
  834
  approvals will again be available for information technology for community care—£12.2 million—mental illness£11.4 million—and AIDS and HIV services—£3.1 million. The capital grant for secure accommodation for children will continue in 1995–96. The level of grant will be announced later.

SCOTLAND

  Farmer's Allowances
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total cost of(a) hill livestock compensatory allowance and (b) sheep annual premium for each year since 1985; and what the percentage change was in each case on the previous year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is set opt in the following table.

  Year

  HLCA Exp £ million

  Percentage change on previous year

  SAP LFA supplement £ million

  Percentage change on previous year

  1985

  37.9

  —

  —

  1986

  42.9

  +13.2

  —

  —

  1987

  42.8

  -0.2

  —

  —

  1988

  43.5

  +1.6

  —

  —

  1989

  45.1

  +3.7

  —

  —

  1990

  48.1

  +6.7

  —

  —

  1991

  56.1

  +17.7

  12.0

  —

  1992

  57.0

  +1.6

  25.0

  +108.3

  1993

  50.7

  -11.1

  19.2

  -23.2

  Winter Feed Costs
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the value of winter feed costs for hill farmers for each year since 1990; and what was the increase or decrease on the previous years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It is not possible to identify winter feed costs but the value of total feed costs for livestock farmers in the Scottish less-favoured areas is set out in the following table:
  835

  Total Feed Cost (£ per farm)

  Change from previous year Total (£ per farm)

  Percentage

  1990–91

  9,472

  -52

  -1 per cent.

  1991–92

  9,788

  +487

  +5 per cent.

  1992–93

  10,883

  +1,106

  +11 percent.

  1993–94 (forecast)

  11,775

  +892

  +8 per cent.

  Source:

  Scottish farm accounts scheme.

  The sample of farms in the Scottish farm accounts scheme varies slightly from year to year. The total cost figures relate to the sample employed in the year in question. The change figures reflect the change from the previous year for an identical sample of farms.

  Cow Subsidies
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the current value of(a) hill cow subsidy and (b) suckler cow subsidy in (i) total and (ii) per head figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The current main rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances for cows in the severely disadvantaged areas is £47.50 and £23.75 in the disadvantaged areas. Expenditure on cows under the 1993 HLCA scheme was £30.2 million. The current suckler cow premium is £87.49 with a further £27.63 per cow payable to producers who qualify for an extensification premium. Expenditure under the 1993 suckler cow premium scheme was £43.5 million.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of health authorities and trusts as at 30 September.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 30 September 1994 there were 15 health boards and 39 NHS trusts in Scotland.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each health board and trust, the number of houses on their property which are privately owned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Scottish prisons are serving discretionary life sentences; and how many are still in prison after serving more than 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 24 individuals are serving discretionary life sentences in Scottish prisons, seven of whom have spent more than 10 years in custody.

  Waiting times (Number of days) for first attendance at consultant out-patient clinic

  Waiting times (Number of days) for patients admitted from in-patient or day case waiting lists

  Specialty

  Mean

  Median

  In-patients Mean

  Day cases Median

  Mean

  Median

  1992

  Cardiology

  —

  —

  33

  27

  26

  21

  Dermatology

  —

  —

  21

  6

  1—

  1—

  Saughton Prison
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the membership of the preliminary review committee of Saughton prison in Edinburgh; and what overlap there is in the membership of that committee with those taking day to day responsibility for prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No individual prison has a preliminary review committee. The preliminary review committee for life sentence prisoners is chaired by a senior Scottish Office official and its membership comprises a High Court judge, the chairman and a psychiatrist member of the Parole Board for Scotland and the deputy chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. None of these is involved in day-to-day management of prisoners.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Saughton prison, Edinburgh, were not told of their right to make written representations to the preliminary review committee.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Scottish prisons have served more than 12 years of their current sentence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E.W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 1 December 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of prisoners who have served more than 12 years of their current sentence.
  There are currently 131 life sentence prisoners who have spent 12 years or more in custody. This information is not collected centrally in respect of determinate prisoners. However, with the introduction of the Scottish Prison Information Network (SPIN) next year, this type of information will be available.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list waiting times for patients of Aberdeen Royal Hospital NHS trust for each of the main medical specialities for the current year, for 1993 and 1992.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on waiting times for first out-patient appointments at trust level was not held centrally until 1994. The table shows the waiting times for patients treated as in-patients or day cases in selected specialties at the trust in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and the waiting times for first out-patient appointments in 1994. All 1994 figures are from 1 January to 30 September and are provisional.
  837

  Waiting times (Number of days) for first attendance at consultant out-patient clinic

  Waiting times (Number of days) for patients admitted from in-patient or day case waiting lists

  Specialty

  Mean

  Median

  In-patients Mean

  Day cases Median

  Mean

  Median

  ENT Surgery

  —

  —

  83

  65

  63

  50

  General Medicine

  —

  —

  26

  15

  16

  10

  General Surgery

  —

  —

  60

  27

  46

  31

  Gynaecology

  —

  —

  42

  28

  26

  7

  Medical

  Paediatrics

  —

  —

  20

  14

  20

  21

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  27

  14

  9

  9

  Neurosurgery

  —

  —

  36

  36

  41

  37

  Ophthalmology

  —

  —

  55

  44

  45

  34

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  —

  —

  64

  41

  10

  8

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  —

  —

  22

  14

  16

  13

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  135

  56

  159

  79

  Radiotherapy (Consultative)

  —

  —

  10

  6

  11

  5

  Respiratory Medicine

  —

  —

  8

  5

  13

  9

  Surgical Paediatrics

  —

  —

  45

  31

  42

  29

  Thoracic Surgery

  —

  —

  83

  27

  30

  11

  Urology

  —

  —

  47

  32

  23

  19

  1993

  Cardiology

  —

  —

  32

  25

  35

  27

  Dermatology

  —

  —

  19

  11

  119

  119

  ENT Surgery

  —

  77

  63

  60

  49

  General Medicine

  —

  —

  26

  14

  21

  13

  General Surgery

  —

  —

  51

  29

  55

  35

  Gynaecology

  —

  —

  43

  37

  20

  6

  Medical Paediatrics

  27

  18

  26

  21

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  16

  8

  11

  7

  Neurosurgery

  —

  —

  39

  31

  32

  25

  Ophthalmology

  —

  —

  55

  46

  38

  35

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  —

  —

  74

  45

  45

  26

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  —

  —

  35

  22

  28

  9

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  158

  68

  151

  78

  Radiotherapy (Consultative)

  —

  —

  12

  7

  9

  8

  Respiratory Medicine

  —

  —

  8

  5

  13

  9

  Surgical Paediatrics

  —

  —

  31

  23

  28

  25

  Thoracic Surgery

  —

  —

  57

  29

  21

  11

  Urology

  —

  —

  48

  34

  31

  26

  1994

  Cardiology

  51

  45

  34

  26

  39

  33

  Dermatology

  77

  77

  25

  15

  1—

  1—

  ENT Surgery

  54

  49

  80

  66

  70

  57

  General Medicine

  55

  58

  25

  15

  19

  14

  General Surgery

  42

  37

  60

  28

  70

  43

  Gynaecology

  46

  44

  43

  35

  21

  7

  Medical Paediatrics

  57

  56

  24

  13

  14

  10

  Nephrology

  24

  18

  16

  8

  6

  7

  Neurosurgery

  31

  31

  31

  28

  26

  16

  Ophthalmology

  58

  60

  47

  39

  34

  30

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  124

  112

  72

  29

  87

  84

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  91

  92

  38

  29

  27

  24

  Plastic Surgery

  12S

  77

  175

  67

  213

  86

  Radiotherapy (Consultative)

  20

  15

  10

  6

  4

  4

  Respiratory Medicine

  16

  14

  6

  5

  10

  7

  838 839

  Waiting times (Number of days) for first attendance at consultant out-patient clinic

  Waiting times (Number of days) for patients admitted from in-patient or day case waiting lists

  Specialty

  Mean

  Median

  In-patients Mean

  Day cases Median

  Mean

  Median

  Surgical Paediatrics

  29

  24

  45

  38

  40

  36

  Thoracic Surgery

  34

  34

  61

  35

  6

  6

  Urology

  81

  71

  60

  51

  34

  28

  1 —No service.

  Note:

  Median—the number of days within which 50 per cent. of patients had waited for treatment.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has met European Commission officials to discuss amendments to Decision 94/474; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: On 12 October the Scientific Veterinary Committee reviewed the six-year rule applying to the export of meat from young cattle and agreed that it should be removed. We are now pressing the Commission to bring forward a decision on this quickly.

  Main specialties

  Establishment

  Number in post

  All specialties

  473

  (455)

  424

  Accident and emergency

  11

  (10)

  7

  Anaesthetics

  55

  (50)

  51

  Clinical laboratory specialties

  54

  (60)

  59

  Medical specialties

  125

  (117)

  108

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  24

  (24)

  23

  Occupational health

  2

  (2)

  1

  Psychiatric specialties

  71

  (68)

  61

  Radiology

  31

  (30)

  28

  Surgical specialties

  99

  (93)

  86

  Other specialties

  1

  (1)

  0

  The 1993 establishment of hospital medical posts is given in brackets.

  The establishment of public health medicine which covers both the senior registrar and the registrar grades is 33 posts. At 30 September 1993, there were 34 doctors in the two grades.

  No senior registrar posts were reported as having been vacant for six months or more in the year ended 30 September 1993. Information is not collected centrally on posts vacant for less than six months.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b). up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively;

  (2) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b). up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up

  Medical Staff
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the medical staff complements in each of the main specialities, the numbers in post, the vacancies and the length of time that vacancies have been unfilled.

  Mr. Lang
  The only grade of hospital doctor for which a central establishment is set is senior registrar. The establishment for the main specialities for 1994 and the numbers of posts filled at 30 September 1993, the latest date for which the information is available, are as follows:

  to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 10 May 1994 at column 94, which provides information about payment performance.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has employed two full-time special advisers over the last five years, although only one, Mr. Gregor Mackay, is in post at present.

  Of the previous special advisers to my Department, Mr. Graeme Carter was appointed on 7 August 1987 and re-appointed on 28 November 1990. He resigned on 31 December 1990. Mr Alan Young was first appointed on 22 December 1989 and was subsequently re-appointed twice—on 29 November 1989 and 8 May 1992. He resigned on 2 November 1994.
  841
  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special adviser's salary spine of 34 points, which starts at £19,503. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to institute a new strategy to combat domestic violence; and what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and the Lord Chancellor on this subject.

  Mr. Maclean
  In their reply to the 1993 Home Affairs Select Committee report on domestic violence, the Government made it clear that domestic violence must be tackled vigorously. Action is being taken to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice; that victims and their children receive the necessary practical and emotional support and that preventive strategies to help reduce violence and suffering are identified and promoted. The aim of the Government's public awareness campaign on domestic violence, which was launched on 24 October, is to send a clear message that domestic violence is a crime and no one should stand for it.

  The Department for Education and the Lord Chancellor's Department are represented on the ministerial group on domestic violence.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were recorded in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 26 October,Official Report, columns 638–39.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively;

  (2) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from the receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. In its 1995 annual report, the Home Office expects to report payment performance in excess of 90 per cent. in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual 842
  conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Byers
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the research project carried out by the Policy Studies Institute into persistent juvenile offenders; what definition they used; what areas of the United Kingdom were covered by the study; what conclusions and recommendations were made; and what response his Department has made to the study.

  Mr. Maclean
  The scope and nature of the research, and the findings, are set out in the published report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The research cost approximately £68,000. The report has helped to inform Government policy on juvenile crime.

  Stop and Search Statistics
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were stopped and searched in each police authority in each quarter since 1990; for what reasons these searches were carried out; in how many cases an arrest was made; and if he will provide an ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched.

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information is published in Home Office statistical bulletin "Operation of certain police powers under PACE, England and Wales 1993"—issue 15/94—table 1, a copy of which can be found in the Library. The bulletin references for earlier years are 14/91, 15/92, and 21/93.

  Quarterly data in the form requested would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  The available statistics on ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched relate to the fiscal year 1993–94 and are given in the table. The data should be treated with caution. This is the first time that this information has been collected. Two forces could not provide the data and a further five forces had to provide an estimate.

  Searches of persons under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by ethnic group

  Searches made: of ethnic minority

  Police force area

  of white persons

  persons

  Avon and Somerset

  3,657

  282

  Bedfordshire

  1,381

  324

  Cambridgeshire

  2,480

  179

  Cheshire

  502

  5

  Cleveland

  2,240

  31

  Cumbria

  3,954

  30

  Derbyshire

  3,313

  149

  Devon and Cornwall

  947

  11

  Dorset

  1,640

  —

  Durham

  1,430

  14

  1Essex

  4,182

  136

  Gloucestershire

  2—

  2—

  Greater Manchester

  38.376

  4,134

  Hampshire

  2,515

  53

  Hertfordshire

  3,807

  351

  1Humberside

  1,063

  26

  Kent

  3,550

  103

  1Lancashire

  6,432

  462

  Leicestershire

  10,378

  1,414

  Lincolnshire

  2,280

  18

  London, City of

  1,611

  500

  Merseyside

  15,075

  662

  843

  Searches of persons under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by ethnic group

  Searches made: of ethnic minority

  Police force area

  of white persons

  persons

  Metropolitan

  Police District

  132,565

  95,751

  Norfolk

  6,410

  53

  Northamptonshire

  2,840

  137

  Northumbria

  8,064

  70

  North Yorkshire

  2,253

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  1,817

  175

  South Yorkshire

  5,054

  404

  Staffordshire

  1,567

  106

  Suffolk

  2,016

  91

  Surrey

  12,544

  870

  1Sussex

  4,118

  213

  Thames Valley

  3,817

  615

  Warwickshire

  3,138

  219

  West Mercia

  7,500

  366

  1West Midlands

  4,098

  1,927

  West Yorkshire

  2,636

  386

  Wiltshire

  1,534

  71

  Dyfed-Powys

  7,720

  37

  Gwent

  2,087

  110

  North Wales

  8,792

  12

  South Wales

  2—

  2—

  1= estimated

  2= not available

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if information relating to stop and search incidents where no arrest is made is stored on police computers.

  Mr. Maclean
  A written record must be made of all stop and searches by police officers whether or not an arrest is made. The method of retention of such records is a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Names

  1990

  Mr. M. Simmonds

  23 October 1989—July 1990

  Mr. J. Taylor

  19 February 1990—November 1990

  Mr. A. Kerpel

  1 December 1990–10 April 1992

  1991

  Mr. A. Kerpel

  (see above)

  Mr. C. Grantham

  18 February 1991–10 April 1992

  Mr. A. Kerpel

  (see above)

  1992

  Mr. C. Grantham

  (see above)

  Mrs. A. Keswick

  11 April 1992–28 May 1993

  Mr. D. Ruffley

  11 April 1992–28 May 1993

  1993

  Mrs. A. Keswick

  (see above)

  Mr. D. Ruffley

  (see above)

  Mr. P. Rock

  28 May 1993—to date

  Mr. D. Cameron

  21 June 1993–31 August 1994

  1994

  Mr. P. Rock

  (see above)

  844

  Year

  Names

  Mr. D. Cameron

  (see above)

  Miss R. Whetstone

  5 September 1994—to date

  I regret that, in the reply I gave on 20 July 1994, Official Report, columns 274–75, to an earlier question from the hon. Member, I said that only one special adviser joined the Department in 1990.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, currently ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Police Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the allocations of police grant for individual police authorities in 1995–96; and what are the implications of this for the overall funding of police authorities in that year.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today put a copy of my proposals for the allocation of police grant for 1995–96 in the Library.

  Proposals are also being announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for police standard spending assessments and special grants in England and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for police standard spending assessments in Wales.

  The table below shows by police force area the total effect of all these proposals for 1995–96.

  Police Force Area

  1995–96 Funding £ million

  English Forces

  Avon and Somerset

  146.67

  Bedfordshire

  55.28

  Cambridgeshire

  62.24

  Cheshire

  93.49

  Cleveland

  70.17

  Cumbria

  54.33

  Derbyshire

  87.71

  Devon and Cornwall

  145.14

  Dorset

  62.24

  Durham

  68.09

  Essex

  146.27

  Gloucestershire

  55.93

  Hampshire

  168.17

  Hertfordshire

  87.24

  Humberside

  92.27

  Kent

  157.89

  Lancashire

  157.62

  Leicestershire

  89.34

  Lincolnshire

  57.08

  Norfolk

  70.36

  North Yorkshire

  66.71

  Northamptonshire

  55.80

  Nottinghamshire

  109.51

  Staffordshire

  100.51

  Suffolk

  57.95

  Surrey

  85.06

  Sussex

  144.78

  Thames Valley

  192.72

  Warwickshire

  47.67

  West Mercia

  97.22

  845

  Police Force Area

  1995–96 Funding £ million

  Wiltshire

  58.67

  English Shires Total

  2,949.13

  English Metropolitan Forces

  Greater Manchester

  324.38

  Merseyside

  214.73

  Northumbria

  177.97

  South Yorkshire

  146.22

  West Midlands

  326.90

  West Yorkshire

  249.30

  English Metropolitan Total

  1,439.50

  Metropolitan Police

  1,628.56

  City of London

  57.27

  English Total

  6,074.46

  Welsh Forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  44.22

  Gwent

  47.40

  North Wales

  62.85

  South Wales

  146.24

  Welsh Total

  300.71

  Total

  6,375.17

  (1) Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women from an ethnic minority background are police officers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  As of 31 August 1994, the latest date for which this information is readily available, there were 1,590 men and 438 women from an ethnic minority background serving as police officers in England and Wales.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to contract out operational support services of the Metropolitan police; and what conditions are being placed on the contractors concerning their employees.

  Mr. Maclean
  Police forces do not contract out operational police duties. Support functions, however, may be suitable for contracting out. The Commissioner informs me that the Metropolitan police contracted out catering, cleaning, security guarding, building maintenance, vehicle repair and other support services to the value of more than £100 million in 1993–94.

  The Metropolitan police has an extensive programme of market testing. Work valued at more than £110 million a year is being examined to see if greater value for money could be achieved if all or part of this work were undertaken by the private sector.

  In certain cases, contractors are required to meet special security conditions.

  Remand
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people on remand 846
  (a) untried, (b) convicted unsentenced and (c) in total at the end of each month in 1994.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on remand data for 1994 will not be available until autumn 1995.

  Remands data include estimates for a number of police forces where data are of a questionable quality. It is not appropriate, for this reason, to give a monthly breakdown of remand figures.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of custody per inmate per month for those on remand in custody.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 1 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average monthly cost of custody for prisoners on remand.
  In 1993–94 the average monthly cost per prisoner place was £1,893. This excludes exceptional items—the costs of holding prisoners in police cells and compensation for abandonment of plans to relocate the Prison Service headquarters to Derby.
  It is not possible to distinguish the cost of keeping different types of offenders in custody.

  Truncheons
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in full the results of tests made to assess the alternatives to the traditional truncheon for use by the police in London.

  Mr. Maclean
  A report of the scientific evaluation of the alternative batons which have been approved for the Metropolitan police has been sent to the Association of Chief Police Officers, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Policing Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost to police authorities in England of dealing with demands of(a) the Crown Prosecution Service, (b) the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and (c) traffic management schemes.

  Mr. Maclean
  There has been no central assessment of the overall cost to police authorities of dealing with any of these areas.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoner nights have been spent in police cells in each month of 1994 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Jack Straw, dared 1 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoner nights spent in police cells in each month of 1994 to date.

  847
  The latest information, up to and including 27 November, is given below:

  Number

  January

  16

  February

  4,439

  March

  12,178

  April

  9,178

  May

  4,795

  June

  2,100

  July

  1,890

  August

  4,512

  September

  4,255

  October

  4,418

  November (to 27)

  2,910

  Total

  51,252

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to his Department of keeping prisoners in police cells, broken down by police authority in 1994 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewes to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 1 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells, broken down by police authority.
  The following table gives police cell costs for each police authority for 1 January 1994–30 November 1994.

  Police Authority

  Amount £

  Cumbria

  13,385.44

  Greater Manchester

  7,937,323.17

  Humberside

  202,700.87

  Lancashire

  696,288.29

  Merseyside

  1,032,697.68

  Northamptonshire

  9,190.90

  Northumbria

  218,916.32

  South Yorkshire

  270,742.53

  West Yorkshire

  346,807.06

  Total

  10,728,052.26

  The above amounts exclude invoices not yet submitted.

  Police Houses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police houses there are in each police authority; and how many are empty.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table.

  Stock of police houses at 31 March 1994

  Police authorities

  Total stock

  Vacant

  Avon and Somerset

  346

  32

  Bedfordshire

  107

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  154

  5

  Cheshire

  142

  30

  City of London

  65

  5

  Cleveland

  7

  1

  Cumbria

  239

  64

  Derbyshire

  119

  59

  Devon and Cornwall

  139

  63

  Dorset

  159

  21

  Durham

  53

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  187

  27

  Essex

  353

  41

  Gloucestershire

  165

  22

  Greater Manchester

  340

  41

  Gwent

  52

  8

  Hampshire

  314

  22

  Hertfordshire

  433

  44

  Humberside

  125

  15

  Kent

  479

  25

  Lancashire

  256

  27

  Leicestershire

  72

  7

  Lincolnshire

  109

  25

  Merseyside

  86

  1

  Norfolk

  81

  10

  Northamptonshire

  135

  12

  Northumbria

  288

  27

  North Wales

  276

  145

  North Yorkshire

  286

  52

  Nottinghamshire

  74

  9

  South Wales

  197

  35

  South Yorkshire

  78

  10

  Staffordshire

  120

  14

  Suffolk

  122

  37

  Surrey

  455

  17

  Sussex

  510

  10

  Thames valley

  611

  84

  Warwickshire

  135

  19

  West Mercia

  182

  34

  West Midlands

  403

  23

  West Yorkshire

  126

  29

  Wiltshire

  123

  27

  Metropolitan Police

  2,181

  156

  Total

  10,884

  1,343

  Immigration Applicants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last year the immigration service has failed to meet its target that no applicant for entry into the United Kingdom should spend more than 24 hours in a police cell; what was the length of time individuals were so incarcerated in such cases; and when he expects the target to be met.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information about periods of detention in police cells is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Plans to provide additional immigration detention accommodation over the next 18 months should assist in reducing the time spent in police cells.

  Spitalfields Market Constabulary
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the authority for the operation of Spitalfields Market constabulary; who controls them; what is their relationship with(a) the Metropolitan police and (b) the City of London police; what is the involvement of the Home Office in their work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for Spitalfields Market constabulary rests with the Corporation of the City of London.

  Police Car Maintenance Units
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a summary of the financial findings from the study his Department conducted in 1988 into the proposed privatisation of police car maintenance units.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such study has ever been undertaken by the Home Office. The Audit Commission published a study in May 1989, however, entitled "Improving Vehicle Fleet Management in the Police Service"—police papers number 3—which made a number of recommendations aimed at reducing the repair and maintenance costs of police vehicles. It did not consider the question of privatisation.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide information via Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's press notices are passed to the Central Office of Information, through which they are made generally available to users of Internet. We are considering using Internet to provide other public information.

  Mr. Stephen Smith
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to date over the allegations made by Mr. Stephen Smith that he suffered medical negligence while an inmate at Doncaster prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  850
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the case of Stephen Smith.
  Mr. Smith received medical attention at Doncaster prison and was subsequently referred to Doncaster Royal Infirmary for further treatment. Whilst receiving treatment for his condition in Doncaster it is recorded that he refused to follow medical advice.

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) by month for the last 48 months, the private security companies that his Department has employed that are not registered with either of the industry's watchdog bodies and (b) those companies currently employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the period specified, the Home Office has let contracts to the following private security companies which are not registered with either the British Security Industry Association or the International Professional Trade Association:

  Contractor

  Contract duration

  COEX Limited

  February 1991–September 1992

  Grundig International Limited

  July 1992–December 1992

  Johnson Control Systems Limited

  February 1992–March 1994

  Knogo UK Limited

  December 1991–June 1992

  3 DIS (Europe)

  March 1994–March 1994

  The Home Office currently employs the following private security companies which are not registered with either the British Security Industry Association or the International Professional Trade Association:

  Contractor

  Airline Security Consultants Limited

  Aviation Defence International

  Defence Security Services

  Insight Consulting

  Security Wales Limited

  A number of factors are considered when awarding contracts, which may include certification of compliance with relevant British standards and membership of an established trade association.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who were serving a prison sentence have escaped and are still at large; and on what dates and in what circumstances they absconded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewes to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of sentenced prisoners who have escaped and who are still at large.
  Of the sentenced population, 67 male and two female prisoners are still at large. A table showing the dated and circumstanct of

  851
  each escape is enclosed, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  Many of the escapes have been through a breach of the perimeter of category C prison. We are part way through a major programme to upgrade the perimeter fences of such prisons which will make escape significantly more difficult.
  A substantial proportion of escapes in the past have also been from escort. As a result of a range of initiatives, the number of escapes from escort is falling. If current trends continue, such escapes will be over 50 per cent. lower in 1994–95 than in 1992–93.

  Date

  Male or Female

  Circumstances of Escape

  3 November 1988

  F

  From Crown Court (escort)

  10 February 1989

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Aldington

  31 October 1989

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Northeye

  17 November 1989

  M

  Through the fence at HMYOI and RC Feltharn

  7 December 1989

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Oxford

  1 April 1990

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Send

  4 August 1990

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Littlehey

  20 February 1991

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Aldington

  15 May 1991

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  14 June 1991

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Aldington

  23 June 1991

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Aldington

  29 June 1991

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Norwich

  6 August 1991

  M

  Through the fence at HMP The Mount

  6 August 1991

  M

  Through the fence at HMP The Mount

  22 September 1991

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Bedford

  24 October 1991

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Wayland

  2 February 1992

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Downview

  11 February 1992

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Channings Wood

  11 February 1992

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Channings Wood

  17 February 1992

  M

  From Crown Court (escort)

  21 March 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Wellingborough

  24 April 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Featherstone

  25 May 1992

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Blantyre House

  6 June 1992

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Highpoint

  1 July 1992

  F

  From outside hospital (escort)

  3 August 1992

  M

  Hidden in laundry van at HMP Elmley

  3 August 1992

  M

  Hidden in laundry van at HMP Elmley

  11 September 1992

  M

  From family visit (escort)

  26 September 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Highpoint

  26 September 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Highpoint

  4 October 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Highpoint

  4 October 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Highpoint

  8 November 1992

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Downview

  852

  Date

  Male or Female

  Circumstances of Escape

  12 November 1992

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  30 November 1992

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  1 April 1993

  M

  From coach on route to prison (escort)

  7 April 1993

  M

  Through fence at HMP Wellingborough

  2 June 1993

  M

  Escape from HMP Channings Wood—method unknown

  25 June 1993

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  2 August 1993

  M

  Escape from HMP Blantyre House—method unknown

  4 September 1993

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Downview

  13 October 1993

  M

  Escape from HMP Ranby—method unknown

  23 October 1993

  M

  Escape from HMYOI and RC Feltham—method unknown

  29 November 1993

  M

  Through fence at HMP Featherstone

  16 December 1993

  M

  From family visit (escort)

  20 December 1993

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Wellingborough

  20 December 1993

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Wellingborough

  10 February 1994

  M

  From coach en route to prison (escort)

  23 March 1994

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  11 April 1994

  M

  From family visit (escort)

  22 May 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Wellingborough

  12 June 1994

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  21 June 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Lindholme

  21 June 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Lindholme

  8 July 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Wellingborough

  24 July 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMYOI Wetherby

  24 July 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMYOI Wetherby

  28 July 1994

  M

  Escape from HMP Littlehey—method unknown

  30 July 1994

  M

  From visits at HMP Swaleside

  3 August 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Downview

  22 August 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Send

  25 August 1994

  M

  Through the fence at HMP Lindholme

  30 August 1994

  M

  Over the wall HMP Featherstone

  18 September 1994

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Camp Hill

  22 October 1994

  M

  Over the fence at HMP Blantyre House

  15 November 1994

  M

  From outside hospital (escort)

  15 November 1994

  M

  Escape from HMP Blantyre House—method unknown

  16 November 1994

  M

  Over the fence at HMP The Mount

  16 November 1994

  M

  Over the fence at HMP The Mount

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department as to the transfer of prison inmates from
  853
  prisons in England and Wales to prisons in other areas of the United Kingdom and overseas; and when this policy was last reviewed.

  Mr. Howard
  The Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides for prisoners, on request, to be transferred between United Kingdom jurisdictions and the Channel Islands, either permanently or temporarily. Requests are considered on an individual basis under criteria announced to Parliament on 23 November 1992,Official Report, columns 481–82.

  The Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 enables the United Kingdom to enter into international agreements for the repatriation of prisoners. Along with 27 other countries, the United Kingdom has ratified the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. In addition, we have been joined in the Commonwealth repatriation scheme by five countries and bi-lateral agreement has been concluded with Thailand.

  These arrangements are kept under constant review.

  Home Leave
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners who were granted home leave were still at large having failed to return at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (2) how many prisoners (a) applied for home leave and (b) were granted home leave in each of the first six months of 1994;

  (3) how many prisoners who were granted home leave during (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) the first six months of 1994 were subsequently (i) charged and (ii) convicted of an offence while on home leave;

  (4) how many prisoners who had been refused parole during the last 12 months were granted home leave within the next 56 days.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answers 21 November 1994]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewes to Mr. George Howarth, dated 1 December 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about home leave for prisoners.
  I regret that the statistical information you have requested is either not collated centrally or is not held within the Prison Service and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Following the review of home leave and temporary release we are establishing a system to monitor release on temporary licence and the impact of the new arrangements. The system will provide a more comprehensive picture than is currently available, although it will not be capable of answering all of your questions.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask he Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the assistance provided currently under section 11 grant posts to Rotherham ethnic minority children who need help with English will be maintained under the single regeneration budget process.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The single regeneration budget has a range of objectives, including enhancing the employment prospects, education and skills of local people, particularly the young and those at a disadvantage, and promoting equality of opportunity. It is also intended to
  854
  promote initiatives of benefit to ethnic minorities. In line with these objectives, on-going commitments under section 11, part of which has been absorbed within the SRB from 1 April 1994, will continue to be honoured. In addition, the SRB will be able to provide support for new education and other projects aimed at ethnic minority communities through the bidding arrangements introduced for 1995–96 and later years.

  Rotherham is also eligible to bid for section 11 resources under the terms of a circular issued by the Home Office on 7 September. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22 November that section 11 funding for the current bidding round is to be doubled from £15 million to £30 million, and that the deadline for applications for funding is to be extended to 30 December 1994.

  Private Security Services
  Mr. William O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives from private security services to discuss their role in respect of policing of streets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No Home Office Ministers have ever met the private security industry specifically to discuss street patrolling. Policing of our streets is a matter for the police service.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list all grant-maintained schools, with their DFE reference numbers by local education authority area, in separate lists for primary, secondary and special schools, with voluntary schools separately identified by denomination; if she will give for each school (i) the actual expenditure for the year 1993–94 and (ii) the allocations made for the year 1994–95 together with, in each case, the number of pupils used for calculations, the transitional grant awarded, the direct.annual maintenance grant, the AMG central costs allocation, the AMG meal subsidies, the AMG carry-forward from the previous financial year, the special-purpose grant for curriculum and staff-development grant, the special-purpose grant for VAT and rate-relief grant, the special-purpose grant for premises insurance grant, the special-purpose grant for staff-restructuring grant, the capital grant for formula allocation, the capital grant for named projects, other grants from public funds, the total of above grants for each school (1) excluding and (2) including capital grants for named projects, the total of the above for each school excluding capital grants expressed per head of school population, the total of the above for each school including capital grants expressed per head of school population, and the total for each of primary, secondary and special grant-maintained schools; and if, in respect of each school, she will list its standard 'A' number multiplied by number of year groups and capacity according to open enrolment calculation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Matters concerning the determination and payment of grant to grant-maintained schools are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency
  855
  for Schools. It also holds grant information relating to last year. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  The remaining information requested is being collated. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is ready.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many of the bills paid by her Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in her Department, how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department will be providing details of its annual payment performance in its departmental report. For the invoices submitted to central accounts in October, 94.7 per cent. had been paid within one month of receipt, 99.0 per cent. within two months, 99.7 per cent. within three months and 99.8 per cent within six months.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what amounts have been requested by way of capital spending in 1995–96 by each local education authority; and what has been the total amount requested in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Capital bids for LEAs in England for 1995–96 (per thousand)

  LEA

  Total bids

  Barking

  7,389

  Barnet

  8,616

  Bexley

  4,648

  Brent

  4,044

  Bromley

  8,068

  Croydon

  11,134

  Ealing

  38,064

  Enfield

  16,103

  Haringey

  15,138

  Harrow

  12,442

  Havering

  9,955

  Hillingdon

  9,563

  Hounslow

  14,373

  Kingston

  6,427

  Merton

  9,155

  Newham

  16,459

  Redbridge

  5,997

  Richmond

  5,820

  Sutton

  6,179

  Waltham

  12,379

  City

  —

  Camden

  5,516

  Westminster

  769

  Greenwich

  11,250

  Hackney

  8,672

  Hammersmith

  3,047

  Islington

  8,711

  856

  Capital bids for LEAs in England for 1995–96 (per thousand)

  LEA

  Total bids

  Kensington

  3,248

  Lambeth

  12,293

  Lewisham

  22,953

  Southwark

  5,983

  Wandsworth

  10,349

  Tower Hamlets

  22,132

  Birmingham

  40,926

  Coventry

  5,726

  Dudley

  6,278

  Sandwell

  9,249

  Solihull

  5,115

  Walsall

  7,743

  Wolverham

  11,515

  Knowsley

  14,793

  Liverpool

  18,676

  St. Helens

  6,195

  Sefton

  4,439

  Wirral

  7,343

  Bolton

  5,769

  Bury

  3,141

  Manchester

  57,840

  Oldham

  9,119

  Rochdale

  8,645

  Salford

  21,263

  Stockport

  3,608

  Tameside

  4,498

  Trafford

  7,392

  Wigan

  9,043

  Barnsley

  5,371

  Doncaster

  9,347

  Rotherham

  4,380

  Sheffield

  43,690

  Bradford

  41,166

  Calderdale

  6,003

  Kirklees

  9,762

  Leeds

  28,958

  Wakefield

  27,740

  Gateshead

  6,206

  Newcastle

  26,189

  North Tyneside

  8,028

  South Tyneside

  5,708

  Sunderland

  10,113

  Isle of Scilly

  37

  Avon

  24,893

  Bedfordshire

  11,126

  Berkshire

  15,538

  Bucks

  25,345

  Cambridge

  26,329

  Cheshire

  31,409

  Cleveland

  10,639

  Cornwall

  15,975

  Cumbria

  25,244

  Derbyshire

  36,975

  Devon

  34,680

  Dorset

  24,149

  Durham

  53,984

  East Sussex

  34,916

  Essex

  76,527

  Gloucester

  45,828

  Hampshire

  33,718

  Hereford and West

  15,718

  Hertford

  16,872

  Humberside

  19,679

  Isle of Wight

  10,225

  Kent

  67,632

  Lancashire

  40,337

  Leicester

  9,611

  Lincoln

  16,197

  Norfolk

  17,677

  North Yorkshire

  32,232

  Northampton

  17,345

  857

  Capital bids for LEAs in England for 1995–96 (per thousand)

  LEA

  Total bids

  Northumber

  5,178

  Nottingshire

  18,680

  Oxfordshire

  30,531

  Shropshire

  9,928

  Somerset

  11,959

  Staffordshire

  26,649

  Suffolk

  20,132

  Surrey

  22,842

  Warwick

  17,307

  West Sussex

  18,539

  Wiltshire

  7,732

  Total

  1,818,167

  Appeals by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained (including Grant Maintained) primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England—Academic year 1992–93

  Appeals Committee outcome

  Local Education Authority Area

  Total appeals lodged

  Withdrawn before reaching Appeals Committee

  Settled to mutual satisfaction

  Decided in parents favour

  Rejected

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Camden

  378

  24

  46

  61

  247

  Greenwich

  393

  73

  50

  140

  129

  Hackney

  371

  26

  103

  101

  141

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  231

  13

  6

  25

  187

  Islington

  392

  0

  93

  81

  218

  Kensington and Chelsea

  58

  5

  7

  18

  28

  Lambeth

  380

  68

  89

  64

  159

  Lewisham

  784

  61

  154

  125

  444

  Southwark

  352

  16

  83

  79

  174

  Tower Hamlets

  596

  13

  150

  72

  361

  Wandsworth

  154

  35

  19

  48

  52

  Westminster

  227

  34

  20

  23

  150

  Barking and Dagenham

  174

  0

  60

  55

  59

  Barnet

  918

  189

  156

  189

  381

  Bexley

  434

  46

  91

  208

  89

  Brent

  145

  9

  66

  18

  52

  Bromley

  879

  221

  134

  138

  386

  Croydon

  831

  83

  95

  250

  402

  Ealing

  288

  6

  15

  90

  169

  Enfield

  710

  111

  131

  169

  299

  Haringey

  340

  5

  119

  55

  161

  Harrow

  372

  66

  47

  80

  179

  Havering

  388

  8

  43

  92

  245

  Hillingdon

  314

  16

  64

  31

  203

  Hounslow

  318

  40

  10

  93

  175

  Kingston-upon-Thames1

  125

  4

  11

  30

  79

  Merton

  233

  78

  79

  23

  53

  Newham

  39

  3

  12

  10

  14

  Redbridge

  503

  0

  0

  100

  403

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  227

  24

  1

  80

  122

  Sutton

  572

  16

  129

  111

  314

  Waltham Forest

  511

  26

  20

  263

  202

  Birmingham

  1,957

  157

  240

  539

  1,021

  Coventry

  437

  92

  1

  164

  180

  Dudley

  193

  17

  77

  21

  78

  Sandwell

  161

  58

  31

  59

  13

  Solihull

  258

  23

  89

  27

  119

  Walsall

  39

  13

  4

  9

  13

  Wolverhampton

  75

  16

  1

  22

  36

  Knowsley

  34

  0

  0

  15

  19

  Liverpool

  897

  0

  128

  340

  429

  St. Helens

  134

  12

  18

  59

  45

  Sefton

  123

  11

  50

  38

  24

  Wirral

  438

  0

  136

  70

  232

  Bolton

  233

  1

  22

  113

  97

  Bury

  619

  46

  303

  138

  130

  Manchester

  1,263

  86

  91

  561

  525

  Oldham

  378

  6

  204

  46

  122

  Rochdale

  262

  18

  69

  69

  106

  Admission Appeals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will state in total and for each local education authority for 1992–93 and 1993–94 the number of parents who made admission appeals which were(a) withdrawn before appeal committee stage, (b) settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties before appeal committee stage, (c) heard by appeal committee and rejected and (d) heard and decided in the parents' favour.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on appeals lodged by parents against the non-admission of their children to the maintained school of their choice for each local education authority area for 1992–93 is given in the table. Information for 1993–94 is not yet available.
  859

  Appeals by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained (including Grant Maintained) primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England—Academic year 1992–93

  Appeals Committee outcome

  Local Education Authority Area

  Total appeals lodged

  Withdrawn before reaching Appeals Committee

  Settled to mutual satisfaction

  Decided in parents favour

  Rejected

  Salford

  134

  0

  64

  34

  36

  Stockport

  92

  0

  0

  40

  52

  Tameside

  173

  12

  3

  97

  61

  Trafford

  237

  12

  45

  46

  134

  Wigan

  158

  6

  59

  39

  54

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  55

  4

  8

  10

  33

  Rotherham

  140

  10

  18

  43

  69

  Sheffield

  595

  135

  306

  99

  55

  Bradford

  1,457

  91

  463

  339

  564

  Calderdale

  1138

  52

  24

  13

  48

  Kirklees

  221

  18

  90

  61

  52

  Leeds

  2,360

  47

  1,496

  444

  373

  Wakefield

  '93

  2

  28

  30

  33

  Gateshead

  29

  1

  12

  3

  13

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  136

  3

  58

  58

  17

  North Tyneside

  16

  1

  4

  1

  10

  South Tyneside

  45

  3

  16

  10

  16

  Sunderland

  73

  4

  0

  28

  41

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  1,115

  149

  94

  462

  410

  Bedfordshire

  92

  0

  11

  39

  42

  Berkshire

  625

  34

  20

  202

  369

  Buckinghamshire2

  580

  24

  10

  161

  385

  Cambridge

  315

  12

  58

  121

  124

  Cheshire

  147

  38

  2

  20

  87

  Cleveland

  80

  10

  10

  14

  46

  Cornwall

  51

  2

  8

  19

  22

  Cumbria

  99

  11

  29

  34

  25

  Derbyshire

  485

  27

  65

  175

  218

  Devon

  541

  51

  119

  99

  272

  Dorset

  340

  6

  35

  136

  163

  Durham

  392

  19

  117

  142

  114

  East Sussex

  298

  16

  45

  85

  151

  Essex

  440

  32

  128

  102

  178

  Gloucestershire

  279

  17

  63

  87

  112

  Hampshire

  148

  55

  6

  28

  59

  Hereford and Worcester

  273

  18

  48

  62

  145

  Hertfordshire

  1,071

  127

  86

  275

  583

  Humberside

  457

  42

  49

  180

  186

  Isle of Wight

  37

  3

  8

  13

  13

  Kent2

  975

  203

  355

  142

  275

  Lancashire

  2,400

  425

  63

  1,132

  780

  Leicestershire

  373

  22

  31

  78

  242

  Lincolnshire

  240

  33

  20

  113

  74

  Norfolk

  183

  19

  46

  43

  75

  North Yorkshire

  533

  32

  0

  311

  190

  Northamptonshire

  103

  4

  29

  27

  43

  Northumberland

  51

  0

  0

  30

  21

  Nottinghamshire

  322

  84

  11

  91

  136

  Oxfordshire

  374

  9

  6

  202

  157

  Shropshire

  360

  5

  23

  297

  35

  Somerset

  379

  5

  144

  120

  110

  Staffordshire

  190

  18

  6

  72

  94

  Suffolk

  150

  17

  40

  60

  33

  Surrey

  640

  75

  160

  180

  225

  Warwickshire

  160

  13

  49

  60

  38

  West Sussex

  187

  29

  14

  39

  105

  Wiltshire

  151

  43

  25

  20

  63

  England Total3

  41,927

  4,005

  8,295

  12,080

  17,527

  Notes:

  1 One appeal was withdrawn after being heard by the appeals committee but before the outcome was decided.

  2 LEAs which did not submit a complete return.

  3 The total number of appeals lodged includes 19 appeals which were heard by the outcome of which had not been decided when the information was collected.

  860

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what percentage of the Higher Education Funding Council for England's teaching allocations was set aside in 1993–94 to compensate for the change in the balance between core and tuition fees; and what was the total sum allocated for compensation and the total funds allocated for research;

  (2) how many institutions received marginal funding for teaching above £300,000 from the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what was the amount of money allocated in each case;

  (3) what proportion of Higher Education Funding Council for England research funds in 1993–94 and 1994–95 was employed in the category of development research, supporting technical development of new forms of teaching and learning; which of the old universities received allocations in this category and what was the maximum and minimum allocation made to any institution in this category;

  (4) in which separate categories of the allocations itemised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 1993–94 and 1994–95 the sums distributed by the council amounted to less than 1 per cent. of the total;

  (5) if she will list the amounts allocated for research to the 10 institutions receiving least in research funds from the Higher Education Funding Council for England in 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (6) how many institutions received research funds from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (a) above £20 million, (b) less than £20 million but above £1 million, (c) less than £1 million but greater than zero or (d) zero research funds for 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (7) what was the maximum total research allocation by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to any single institution in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  (8) if she will list separately the funds provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for teaching and for research for (a) the Open University, (b) the old universities, (c) the former polytechnics and (d) colleges for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures requested are published in the Higher Education Funding Council for England's circulars 35/93 and 31/94, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what mechanisms the Higher Education Funding Council for England uses to identify best practice in teaching; and what financial incentives are used to encourage it.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England recruits appropriate academics to undertake quality assessments of teaching and learning in specific subjects at higher education institutions. An unsatisfactory assessment risks the withdrawal of funds unless corrected during a specified period. Reports of individual assessments are published and, as the assessments for each subject area are completed, an overview report for the whole subject area is published. This peer review identifies best practice and reports on it in the detailed assessment and overview reports.
  862
  The HEFCE, jointly with the other funding councils and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, also supports a teaching and learning technology programme which aims to promote best practice, flexibility and efficiency in teaching within higher education through the greater use of new technology.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether she has carried out a review into the effectiveness of the funding methodology applied by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in achieving the objectives given to the council by the Government; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The effectiveness of funding policy, including the funding methodology of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, in achieving the Government's objectives for higher education is kept under constant review.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the maximum and minimum full-time undergraduate average unit of Higher Education Funding Council for England funding by academic subject category for 1993–94 and 1994–95; and which institutions received these figures in each case.

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the average units of council funding for 1993–94 are published in the Higher Education Funding Council for England's report 1/94, a copy of which is available in the Library. Details for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evidence she has received on trends in teaching costs in higher education institutions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The higher education sector has achieved significant reductions in unit costs in recent years. Up to 1993–94, the scale of the productivity gains in terms of unit public funding exceeded those planned by the Government as a result of institutions' decisions to recruit at above the level of the Government's plans.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what mechanisms exist to ensure that funds allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for research are not used for other purposes;

  (2) what measures are in place to ensure that the expenditure in institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England reflects the allocations made by the Higher Education Funding Council for England relating to research and teaching.

  Mr. Boswell
  The majority of recurrent funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England is provided in the form of a block grant. Higher education institutions, being autonomous, are free to deploy the grant to meet their own needs and priorities, subject to the terms of their financial memoranda with the HEFCE.

  The HEFCE has asked institutions to account annually for their allocation of research funds to individual departments, though not to account for how those funds are spent. This will enable higher education institutions to plan their research better and provide improved public accountability.

  League Tables
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has for the supply of information to local authorities by grant-maintained schools for the purpose of drawing up value-added school league tables.

  Mr. Forth
  The report of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on the development of value added by schools will be published shortly. The implications for the collection and aggregation of data to permit the inclusion of value-added measures in school performance tables will need to be considered against the various options for comparing pupils' actual achievements at different ages. Whatever approach is adopted will need to produce measures which are straightforward to calculate and intelligible to parents.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the special advisers employed by her Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Forth
  Five special advisers have been employed by the Department in the last five years: Eleanor Laing, Tessa Keswick, David Ruffley, Clifford Grantham, and, most recently, Dr. Elizabeth Cottrell.

  Information on special advisers is not retained in the Department once they leave, and dates of joining and leaving are not therefore available.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Students (Financial Support)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will give details of the support that will be available to students through mandatory awards and student loans in the academic year 1995–96.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today laid before Parliament the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 and, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1994.

  These regulations provide for new rates of grant and loan for the academic year 1995–96 and for the various changes I announced on 29 November, Official Report, columns 675–80. The total level of support available to students through the main rates of grant and loan together in 1995–96 will be 2.5 per cent. higher than for 1994–95 in line with forecast price increases. I am placing a memorandum in the Library giving full details of the new rates.

  Specialist Institutions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances it is the responsibility(a) of local education authorities to buy placements at independent specialist institutions for young people aged 16 to 19 years who have a statement and (b) of the Further
  864
  Education Funding Council for buying placements if there is not a statement and if the college is educationally appropriate; if Doncaster college for the deaf is classed as educationally appropriate; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Education Act 1993, LEAs have a duty, in consultation with the parents, to determine the special education provision required for young people for whom they are responsible. Where an LEA maintains a statement, it must also arrange for the special educational provision specified in the statement. LEAs have a statutory duty to pay for the provision at an independent institution specified in a statement when it is further education provided at a school catering for under-16s as well as over-16s.

  In circumstances where there is no LEA duty to fund provision, it falls upon the Further Education Funding Council to do so in respect of students over compulsory school age and under 25 years of age who have learning difficulties and disabilities. Where the council has satisfied itself that suitable provision is not available in the further and higher education sectors and judges that it is in the students' best interests to do so, it has a duty to buy provision outside these sectors.

  The Further Education Funding Council has confirmed that it will continue to fund places for students with learning difficulties and disabilities at Doncaster college for the deaf in cases which meet the council's published criteria for such placements.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by her Department and Government agencies answerable to her Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available as it is not possible to disaggregate costs of this nature from the Department's running cost expenditure, details of which are published in the annual departmental report [CM 2510].

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many official Christmas cards she and her Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if she will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card she intends to send this year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Ministers and I intend to send about 950 official Christmas cards in 1994. They will cost some £800 to purchase and £180 to post. Information on the cost in staff time to address cards and place them in envelopes is not available. When my cards are available, I will place copies in the Libraries of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,
  865
  Official Report, column 266, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the spring 1994 labour force survey figure to identify separately the numbers of employed and self-employed people in part-time work who could not find full-time work, by percentage, gender and age.

  Part-time employees who could not find a full-time job by region and gender—Spring 1994 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Region of residence

  Thousands

  As a percentage of all part-time employees

  All Persons

  Men

  Women

  All Persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  706

  194

  512

  13

  26

  11

  England

  590

  167

  423

  13

  26

  10

  South East

  201

  57

  144

  13

  23

  11

  —Greater London

  83

  26

  57

  16

  28

  14

  —ROSE

  118

  31

  87

  11

  21

  9

  East Anglia

  31

  1—

  21

  14

  1—

  11

  South West

  67

  20

  47

  13

  26

  11

  West Midlands

  66

  18

  47

  13

  29

  10

  East Midlands

  41

  12

  29

  10

  25

  8

  Yorks and Humberside

  62

  17

  45

  12

  25

  10

  North West

  77

  23

  54

  13

  28

  10

  North

  45

  11

  34

  15

  27

  13

  Wales

  43

  11

  32

  17

  42

  14

  Scotland

  73

  15

  57

  16

  29

  14

  1 Estimates below 10,000 and so not shown.

  Part-time employees who could not find a full-time job by gender and age—Spring 1994 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  As a percentage of all part-time employees

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  All 16+

  706

  194

  512

  13

  26

  11

  16–19

  57

  17

  41

  10

  6

  13

  20–24

  106

  40

  66

  29

  37

  2.6

  25–34

  154

  45

  109

  14

  60

  10

  35–49

  223

  41

  182

  12

  54

  10

  50–59/64

  140

  47

  93

  14

  37

  11

  60/65+

  26

  1—

  21

  6

  1—

  7

  Note:

  1 Estimates below 10,000 and so not shown.

  Source:

  Labour force survey.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, column 266, if he will provide a breakdown by region and gender of (a) the 587,000 employees in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent employment and (b) the total number of employees in temporary jobs.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following tables give the information available from the spring 1994 labour force survey:

  (a) Employees in temporary jobs because they could not find full-time work by sex and region of residence Spring 1994 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Sex

  Region of residence

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  587

  303

  284

  North

  41

  26

  15

  866
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following tables give the information available from the spring 1994 labour force survey. The same size used in the survey is not large enough to provide reliable estimates for self-employed people, nor for an age analysis by region.

  (a) Employees in temporary jobs because they could not find full-time work by sex and region of residence Spring 1994 (not easonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Sex

  Region of residence

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54

  31

  22

  East Midlands

  33

  16

  17

  East Anglia

  25

  13

  11

  South East

  191

  94

  96

  —Greater London

  77

  34

  43

  —Rest of South East

  113

  60

  53

  South West West Midlands

  42

  18

  24

  North West

  63

  33

  30

  Wales

  32

  17

  15

  Scotland

  63

  32

  31

  Source:

  Labour force survey.
  867

  (b) Employees in temporary jobs by sex and region of residence Spring 1994 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Sex

  Region of residence

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  1,373

  607

  765

  North

  84

  43

  42

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  118

  56

  62

  East Midlands

  90

  35

  55

  East Anglia

  56

  23

  33

  South East

  480

  205

  275

  —Greater London

  184

  79

  105

  —Rest of South East

  296

  126

  170

  South West

  101

  42

  59

  West Midlands

  112

  48

  65

  North West

  140

  67

  73

  Wales

  66

  28

  38

  Scotland

  125

  62

  63

  Source:

  Labour force survey.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest estimate of the number of employees who are in temporary part-time work because they have been unable to find full-time permanent employment, broken down by region, gender and age.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table gives the information available from the spring 1994 labour force survey. The sample size used for the survey is not large enough to provide reliable estimates for regions.

  Employees in temporary part-time jobs because they could not find full-time permanent work.

  Spring 1994 (not seasonally adjusted) thousands Great Britain

  Age

  Men

  Women

  16–24

  19

  14

  25–34

  11

  20

  35–49

  12

  27

  50 and over

  1—

  13

  Total

  49

  74

  Note:

  1 Under 10,000 and so not shown.

  Source:

  Labour force survey.

  Merchant Seafarers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the provisions of current employment legislation which do not apply to United Kingdom merchant seafarers.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Provisions which exclude seafarers of various descriptions in some circumstances from certain of the provisions of general employment legislation include:

  Section 10 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975;

  Sections 8 and 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976;

  Sections 141 and 144 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

  Section 30 of the Wages Act 1986;

  Sections 284 and 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

  Training
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much training was provided by each training and enterprise council in Greater London in respect of(a) employment training, (b) youth training and (c) other programmes in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will show the proportions of each that were provided by further education colleges.

  Mr. Paice
  Training figures information by training and enterprise councils in Greater London is set out in the following table. Information on training provided by further education colleges is not available in the form requested.

  London TECs-1993–94 Starts, Average Participants and Training Weeks Delivered

  Youth Training (Excluding Credits)

  Starts

  Average Participants1

  Training weeks delivered

  Aztec

  1,581

  1,267

  64,937

  Centec

  2,336

  1,898

  96,912

  Cilntec

  3,079

  2,234

  114,316

  Letec

  4,538

  4,484

  232,527

  NLtec

  1,730

  1,323

  72,343

  NWtec

  1,193

  832

  49,638

  Solotec

  4

  256

  18,253

  Sttec

  51

  1,605

  80,686

  Wltec

  2,140

  2,351

  122,360

  Region

  16,652

  16,250

  851,972

  Source:

  TEC Annex J Management Information (Actuals).

  Note:

  The figure for average participants is the average of the participants on the scheme at the end of each four-weekly period in 1993–94. (For LFW the average of the participants at the end of the seven periods when scheme was run).

  Youth Credits

  Starts

  Average Participants1

  Training weeks delivered

  Aztec

  0

  0

  0

  Centec

  0

  0

  0

  Cilntec

  0

  0

  0

  Letec

  0

  0

  0

  NLtec

  0

  0

  0

  NWtec

  0

  0

  0

  Solotec

  2,629

  2,063

  101,394

  Sttec

  3,896

  1,236

  57,594

  Wltec

  0

  0

  0

  Region

  6,525

  3,299

  158,988

  Source:

  TEC Annex 1 Management Information (Actuals)

  Note:

  1 The figure for average participants is the average of the participants on the scheme at the end of each four-weekly period in 1993–94. (For LFW the average of the participants at the end of the seven periods when scheme was run).

  Youth training and credits

  Starts

  Average participants1

  Aztec

  1,581

  1,267

  Centec

  2,336

  1,898

  Cilntec

  3,079

  2,234

  Letec

  4,538

  4,484

  NLtec

  1,730

  1,323

  NWtec

  1,193

  832

  869

  Youth traning and credits

  Starts

  Average participants1

  Solotec

  2,633

  2,318

  Sttec

  3,947

  2,841

  WLtec

  2,140

  2,351

  Region

  23,177

  19,549

  Source:

  TEC Annex J Management Information (Actuals).

  Note:

  1 The figure for average participants is the average of the participants on the scheme at the end of each four-weekly period in 1993–94. (For LFW the average participants at the end of seven periods when scheme was run).

  Training for Work

  Starts

  Average Participants1

  Training weeks delivered

  Aztec

  3,214

  1,234

  60,388

  Centec

  6,265

  2,471

  125,093

  Cilntec

  4,609

  2,156

  112,555

  Letec

  7,460

  3,492

  176,820

  NLtec

  5,506

  2,224

  118,267

  NWtec

  3,518

  1,219

  61,494

  Solotec

  3,587

  1,469

  78,852

  Sttec

  8,436

  3,762

  188,696

  Wltec

  3,149

  1,200

  62,138

  Region

  45,744

  19,228

  984,303

  Source:

  TEC Annex J Management Information (Actuals).

  Note:

  1 The figure for average participants is the average of the participants on the scheme at the end of each four-weekly period in 1993–94. (For LFW the average participants at the end of seven periods when scheme was run).

  Business Start up Scheme2

  Starts

  Average Participants1

  Aztec

  371

  487

  Centec

  366

  178

  Cilntec

  387

  337

  Letec

  363

  341

  NLtec

  549

  272

  NWtec

  242

  227

  Solotec

  567

  513

  Sttec

  516

  502

  WLtec

  425

  516

  Region

  3,786

  3,374

  Source:

  TEC Annex J Management Information (Actuals).

  Notes:

  1 The figure for average participants is the average of the participants on the scheme at the end of each four-weekly period in 1993–94. (For LFW the average participants at the end of seven periods when scheme was run).

  2 Anex J figures are not collected for BSUS and LFW training weeks delivered.

  Learning for Work2

  Starts

  Average Participants1

  Aztec

  230

  194

  Centec

  267

  120

  Cilntec

  235

  92

  Letec

  331

  202

  870

  Learning for Work2

  Starts

  Average Participants1

  NLtec

  212

  147

  NWtec

  51

  39

  Solotec

  138

  87

  Sttec

  421

  234

  WLtec

  158

  64

  Region

  2,043

  1,178

  Source:

  TEC Annex J Management Information (Actuals).

  Notes:

  1 The figure for average participants is the average of the participants on the scheme at the end of each four-weekly period in 1993–94. (For LFW the average participants at the end of seven periods when scheme was run).

  2 Anex J figures are not collected for BSUS and LFW training weeks delivered.

  Training Schemes (Wales)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those referred to employment training in Wales by his Department did not arrive; and what percentage of those in Wales who started a scheme completed their training in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  Some 53.5 per cent. of those referred by the Employment Service to employment training in Wales did not arrive for their training in 1993–94. The ET national follow-up survey show that from April 1992 to March 1993, 58 per cent. of those on employment training completed agreed training.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months respectively;

  (2) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. Recent figures for 1994 indicate that the Employment Department, the Employment Service and the Health and Safety Executive paid, respectively, 96.3, 83.4 and 90.3 per cent. of their bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual condition existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following special advisers have been employed by the Employment Department, in the last five years:

  Alison Broom: from 21 July 1994 to date

  Michael McManus: from 28 May 1993 to 20 July 1994

  Dr. Elizabeth Cottrell: from 14 April 1992 to 27 May 1993

  Iain Wilton: from 13 January 1992 to 13 March 1992

  Tim Collins: from 1 February 1990 to 10 January 1992

  Warwick Lightfoot: from 2 November 1987 to 31 August 1989

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are however, normally paid on a special advisers salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19.503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Jobseekers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the cost to the Benefits Agency of the jobseeker's agreement per individual with whom it is negotiated.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This matter is still under consideration.

ENVIRONMENT

  Business Start-up
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his policy that support for business start-up in Rotherham and similar schemes will be maintained in the single regeneration budget process.

  Mr. Curry
  The single regeneration budget has a range of objectives, including the encouragement of sustainable economic growth and wealth creation by improving the competitiveness of the local economy, including business support. On-going commitments under the business start-up scheme, which has been absorbed within the SRB from 1 April 1994, will continue to be honoured. In addition, the SRB will be able to provide support for new and existing businesses through the bidding arrangements introduced for 1995–96 and later years.

  Pit Data
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make provision for the recording by experts of all relevant data in respect of the workings of(a) shafts, (b) drainage channels and (c) other elements of industrial archaeology which are found at pits being turned into opencast workings; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No; PPG16 "Archaeology and Planning" already gives general guidance on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries under the development plan and control systems, including the steps that should be taken for their preservation or recording.872
  In addition, MPG12 requires local planning authorities to identify, where possible, the location of mine entries and openings in surveys of their areas.

  Quarrying
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received, and what assessment his Department has made, of the impact of the proposed new planning guidelines on quarrying for aggregates upon environmentally important and sensitive sites.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In drawing up the new planning guidelines contained in minerals planning guidance "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England", MPG6, the department consulted a wide range of interested bodies including those concerned about the impact of quarrying in environmentally important and sensitive areas. The responses from those bodies were taken into account and we have had no specific representations since the guidelines were published in April this year.

  The guidelines are designed to ensure that the construction industry receives an adequate and steady supply of material at the best balance of social, environmental and economic cost. The environmental impacts of particular proposals are given due consideration during the processing of the planning application.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average and the median time his Department has taken to pay suppliers in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion of bills took more than six weeks to pay.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993, my Department paid 90 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the effect on rate bills in the northern region of the 1995 property revaluation on each category of property divided between small and large, assuming no change in real terms rate poundage and(a) with and (b) without the effect of transitional relief, on the basis of his answer of 1 November to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), Official Report, columns 1003–6.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information about properties in the northern region is contained in the table below and takes account of the most recent information available. The effects of the 1995 revaluation taking account of the transitional arrangements are calculated on the basis of the limits on increases and decreases in rate bills announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his answer of 29 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr.
  873
  Garnier), Official Report, columns 649–50. The effects, taking no account of transitional relief, are shown in parentheses.

  Percentage changes in rate bills for the northern region following the 1995 revaluation.

  Northern Region: percentage change

  Small properties1

  Large properties

  Total

  Shops

  +8 (+40)

  +11 (+37)

  +10 (+37)

  Offices

  +9 (+52)

  +12 (+55)

  +11 (+54)

  Factories

  +9 (+48)

  +8 (+48)

  +8 (+48)

  Warehouses

  +9 (+47)

  +12 (+28)

  +11 (+30)

  Other

  +7 (+36)

  +7 (+19)

  +7 (+21)

  Total

  +8(+42)

  +8 (+29)

  +8 (+31)

  1 Small properties have a 1 April 1995 rateable value of less than £10,000.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the landfill sites in the counties of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Cleveland and Durham where the controlled burial of low-level nuclear waste is licensed; and, in each case, what is the ceiling on the amounts involved.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following four sites, High Urpeth, Kibblesworth, Ryton and Cowpen Bewley, have in the past received low-level radioactive waste for disposal by controlled burial. The first three mentioned are now closed, leaving Cowpen Bewley as the only site which may receive such waste.

  This site may receive waste from a small number of locally based organisations. Authority to make controlled burials is granted only after an assessment of the waste producer's application and of the site it proposes to use. The certificates of authorisation issued to those organisations, which now use Cowpen Bewley, contain detailed limits on both volume and activity of waste which may be disposed of, and on the disposal conditions. These authorisations permit the disposal of no more than 200 MBq of radium and thorium and of 2 GBq of other radionuclides, which are not alpha emitters, each month at Cowpen Bewley.

  County Archives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to prevent the deterioration of written records in county archives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  All principal local authorities have a duty under the Local Government Act 1972 to make proper arrangements for any documents in their custody. Responsibility for the care of county archives therefore lies with the county councils and any successor authorities. A working group has, however, been established for the purpose of drawing up and promulgating central guidance for the future of archive collections, with particular reference to the needs of any new authorities established as a consequence of local government reorganisation. Its members are drawn from the Public Record Office, the Society of Archivists, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and the Association of County Archivists as well as representatives of my Department and the Department of 874
  National Heritage. It is intended to have the guidance in place early next year.

  CITES
  Mr. Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ninth conference of the parties of CITES.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment and Countryside to the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) on 24 November,Official Report, columns 241–42.

  Rural Challenge Competition
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out the basic features of the successful bids to the Rural Development Commission which enabled them to win the rural challenge competition.

  Mr. Atkins
  I launched rural challenge on 14 February 1994. Detailed bidding guidance was issued on 29 March. In judging the 17 finalists, the panel gave particular priority to bids which involved partnerships drawn from the private, public and voluntary sectors and the local community; demonstrated innovative approaches which could be replicated more widely; respected and enhanced the environment and promoted good design; levered in a high proportion of private sector investment; and offered good value for money. The six winners which Lord Shuttleworth and I announced on 24 November clearly demonstrated those features.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if a homeless family in a temporary tenancy and who are on the local authority housing list will have to accept any property of a suitable size for which they would be eligible under the proposals contained in the statement on access to local authority housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Any applicant for local authority or housing association housing could decline to take up a tenancy offered to him through the housing waiting list. As now, it would be for local authorities to decide whether refusal of such an offer would affect the applicant's eligibility for further offers.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward legislation based on the statement on access to local authority housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 28 November,Official Report, column 479.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the position of a homeless family granted a temporary tenancy who became eligible for a permanent local authority tenancy while they were temporary tenants following implementation of the proposals contained in his statement on access to local authority housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As the then Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Action (Sir G. Young) said
  875
  in his statement to the House on 18 July, Official Report, columns 21–23, in most parts of the country a 12-month period on the housing waiting list will be long enough for someone with real housing needs to obtain a local authority or housing association tenancy.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993, my Department paid 90 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Waste Shipments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy concerning trans-border shipment of toxic and hazardous waste from(a) developed and (b) other countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Government's policy, outlined earlier this year, when a new control regime on waste shipments was introduced.

  The EC waste shipments regulation and the United Kingdom's associated Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 came into effect on 6 May. This legislation enabled the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the Basel convention, to which the United Kingdom became a party on 8 May.

  These obligations are based on the principle of national self-sufficiency in waste disposal. This principle is the means by which countries can be encouraged to take responsibility for disposing of the wastes they generate. Thereby they are encouraged to minimise wastes—especially hazardous wastes—and to reuse and recycle, and to pursue policies of sustainable development.

  We must also have regard for other environmental responsibilities arising from our membership of the European Union and the global community. In implementing the Basel convention, we should not lose sight of these wider considerations.

  As a developed country, with ample disposal facilities to meet our waste arisings, we will have no need to export wastes for final disposal in other countries. The EC regulation prohibits such exports to countries outside the EC and EFTA. We shall go further by proposing a complete prohibition on such exports to all countries.
  876
  There is no equivalent case for a general ban on exports of wastes for recovery, but special considerations apply to the export of hazardous wastes for recovery in developing countries and countries in transition. At the second conference of the Basel convention in March, it was recognised that there is a high risk that such exports will not be managed in environmentally sound ways in the country of receipt. It was decided that, except in exceptional circumstances, trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD states for the purposes of recovery should be prohibited. In the Government's opinion this decision has now taken effect.

  Our policy towards imports is based on similar principles. In future, the presumption will be that wastes should not be imported for final disposal in this country. This applies both to landfill, either directly and indirectly, and to incineration without energy recovery, and also to disposal under the guise of recovery—so called "sham recovery". However, imports for genuine recovery operations will continue to be allowed.

  For most other wastes, all other countries should now develop final disposal facilities and there seems no reason to delay a prohibition on imports. There may, however, be special circumstances where imports for specialist disposal processes—and in particular for high temperature incineration—might be justified on wider environmental grounds for very limited periods and quantities. This would apply on a transitional and reducing basis where a country had not yet completed specialist disposal capacity or was dealing with a backlog inherited from a former communist regime in eastern Europe. We propose to develop strict criteria which would regulate any such continued imports. Our criteria would take account of the technical and environmental characteristics of the waste stream, and the circumstances of the exporting country. Except for small quantities particularly from developing countries, we would propose that the transitional period should not exceed three years at most.

  We do not contemplate importing from countries in a position to develop their own disposal facilities, but taking no action to do so. That would be quite contrary to our policy towards self-sufficiency. Nor would we allow imports which could not be safely handled and managed within the existing disposal capacity in the United Kingdom.

  We shall be making more detailed proposals on exports and imports in the form of a draft waste management plan, which will incorporate technical guidance designed to assist competent authorities in making decisions. There will be a full opportunity for consultation on the draft plan, and I hope this will proceed soon.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mrs. Katherine Ramsay
  Political Adviser; joined in 1986, left in November 1989.

  Mr. Patrick Rock
  Political Adviser; joined on 13 July 1987, left on 28 November 1990; joined on 1 May 1992, left on 27 May 1993.
  877
  Mr. Tim Collins
  Political Adviser; joined on 28 September 1989, left on 29 January 1990.

  Professor David Pearce
  Expert Adviser on Economic Environmental Matters; joined on 26 July 1989, left on 10 April 1992.

  Mr. Richard Marsh
  Political Adviser; joined on 29 January 1990, left on 3 June 1991.

  Dr. Alan Kemp
  Political Adviser; joined on 28 January 1991, left on 10 April 1992.

  Sir Peter Levene
  Expert Adviser on commercial and financial affairs; joined in February 1991, left on 10 April 1992.

  Lady Eileen Strathnaver
  Political Adviser; joined on 4 February 1991, left on 10 April 1992.

  Professor Peter Hall
  Expert Adviser on Planning; joined in March 1991, left on 31 January 1994.

  Mr. Tom Burke
  Expert Adviser on the Environment; joined on 18 March 1991. Still with the Department.

  Miss Alison Broom
  Political Adviser; joined on 17 June 1991, left on 10 April 1992.

  Mr. James Gray
  Political Adviser; joined on 3 June 1992. Still with the Department.

  Mr. Keith Adams
  Political Adviser; joined on 28 May 1993. Still with the Department.

  Mr. Liam O Connor
  Expert Adviser on Architecture; joined on 14 March 1994. Still with the Department.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special adviser's salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary reflects this.

  Direct Services Organisation, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now received a report from the district auditor into the losses by Liverpool city council's direct services organisation during its handling of the city's cable television contract; what action will be taken against those responsible for these losses; whether he will publish the report and his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not yet received the district auditor's report. We will consider very carefully all the facts informing the district auditor's conclusions before making a decision on statutory action. Publication of the report is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

  Green List Wastes
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the quantity of green list wastes exported to non-OECD countries since 6 May 1994 and the companies to which this waste was exported in the receiving countries.
  878
  Mr. Atkins
  This information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Waste Exports
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the United Kingdom has entered into any bilateral agreements with non-OECD countries for the export of hazardous waste for recovery and recycling; and if the European Commission has begun any negotiations on such bilateral agreements on the United Kingdom's behalf.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom has not entered into any bilateral agreements with non-OECD countries for the export of hazardous waste for recovery and recycling. The European Commission is considering requests from certain non-OECD countries for such agreements.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the procedure used since 6 May 1994 to ensure that exports of hazardous waste for recycling or recovery are processed in an environmentally sound manner in the destination country.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's advice on the procedures to be followed is given in part 3 of Department of Environment circular 13/94, copies of which are in the Library. Day-to-day control over trans-frontier shipments of waste is a matter for waste regulation authorities.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the commodity code number, (b) the destination countries, (c) the month of export, (d) the United Kingdom port of exit, (e) the importing companies and (f) the tonnages of hazardous waste exported for recycling or recovery to non-OECD countries since 6 May 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not available centrally.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the standard spending assessment methodology handbook.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I hope that it will be possible to publish it in January.

  Fire Services, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received relating to the standard spending assessment for fire services for the Isle of Wight; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have received a number of representations on the standard spending assessment from the relevant authorities on the Isle of Wight and my hon. Friend, most recently in a meeting with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on 25 October.

  We have listened to the arguments that my hon. Friend and others have put forward and we propose a change to the fire formula to recognise that coastal authorities cannot draw on reinforcements as easily as those inland.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for bringing competition to bear on local authorities' corporate and administrative services.
  879
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Corporate and administrative work comprises a number of distinct administrative support services as diverse as printing and reprographics, and building facilities management. These are provided to all parts of the authority. Local authorities' increasing recognition of the importance of gaining value for money for these services has meant that much of this work is already being exposed to market pressures. Most local authorities will re-charge in-house users for administrative support services. Those users, particularly where they themselves are exposed to CCT, will be keen to keep overhead costs down and will exert pressure for cost-effective and efficient support services.

  Customers for administrative support increasingly have the freedom to go elsewhere if in the in-house service is inadequate. A significant proportion of administrative support services are already provided by external contractors, and some authorities have dispensed entirely with in-house support staff for much of the work.

  The Government's discussions with local authority representatives have led me and my colleagues in Government to conclude that our objective of increasing

  National non-domestic rate—calculation of distributable amounts

  £ millions

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Provisional outturn

  1994–95 in-year contribution

  1995–96 estimated in-year contribution

  (1) Income from local lists

  Multiplier

  0.348

  0.386

  0.402

  0.416

  0.423

  0.423

  Gross Rate Yield

  10,301

  12,033

  12,270

  12,357

  12,491

  12,908

  (i)Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -182

  -142

  -395

  -480

  -548

  -477

  (b) Empty properties

  -710

  -964

  -1,162

  -1,174

  -1,214

  -1,303

  (c) Charitable

  -240

  -305

  -318

  -352

  -402

  -435

  (d) Discretionary

  -12

  -16

  -20

  -21

  -19

  -20

  Net Yield after reliefs

  9,157

  10,607

  10,374

  10,329

  10,308

  10,673

  (ii) Collection Costs/Reductions to Contributions

  (a) Costs of collection

  -43

  -46

  -67

  -68

  -69

  -75

  (b) Losses on collection

  -121

  -203

  -200

  -192

  -170

  -190

  (c) City of London offset

  -29

  -30

  -31

  -25

  -7

  -7

  Total contribution in respect of year

  8,964

  10,329

  10,075

  10,045

  10,063

  10,401

  (iii) Adjustments

  (a) Repayments/interest/ Late rating adjustments

  —

  27

  -254

  -957

  -888

  -349

  (b) Revisions to contributions at outturn (1994–95 only)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -211

  —

  Total adjustments

  —

  27

  -254

  -957

  -1,100

  -349

  Net Local Yield

  8,964

  10,355

  9,821

  9,088

  8,963

  10,052

  (2) Income from Central List

  Net Central List Yield

  1,016

  1,100

  1,098

  1,095

  1,118

  1,151

  (3) Income from Crown Contributions in Aid

  Net Crown Yield

  610

  463

  462

  445

  507

  540

  Total NDR Yield

  10,590

  11,918

  11,381

  10,627

  10,588

  11,743

  (4) Exchequer Contributions

  (a) Local List Transition

  —

  —

  271

  591

  435

  477

  (b) Central List/ Crown

  —

  —

  27

  42

  20

  28

  Total Exchequer contributions

  —

  —

  298

  633

  455

  505

  Total NNDR pool payments (1+2+3+4)

  10,590

  11,918

  11,679

  11,261

  11,043

  12,248

  880
  competition in corporate and administrative support services is already being met though these means, and that extension of CCT to take this work would not bring sufficient additional benefits. We have, therefore, decided not to proceed with proposals to introduce CCT for local authority corporate and administrative services.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain the basis of his calculations of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  The distributable amount of non-domestic rates in England for 1995–96 will be £11,354 million. This is based on a non-domestic rate multiplier of 0.432 and includes an allowance of £505 million for an Exchequer payment to the non-domestic rates pool to compensate for the shortfall which would otherwise occur as a result of regulations to be made under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which will phase in the effects of the 1995 revaluation on rate bills.

  The calculation for 1995–96, and the prior-year figures on which this is based, are set out in the following table:
  881

  National non-domestic rate—calculation of distributable amounts

  £ millions

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Provisional outturn

  1994–95 in-year contribution

  1995–96 estimated in-year contribution

  (5) Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  —

  162

  -328

  -954

  -1,253

  -894

  Combined total

  10,590

  12,080

  11,352

  10,306

  9,790

  11,354

  Distributable amount

  10,429

  12,048

  12,306

  11,559

  10,685

  11,354

  Surplus carried forward

  162

  -328

  -954

  -1,253

  -894

  —

  Notes:

  (1) Item 1: The gross calculated rate yield represents the average value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists times the multiplier. For 1990–91 to 1993–94 the yield is the amount recorded in the post-end year (NNDR3) returns. For 1994–95 it is the amount underlying authorities' provisional contributions to the non-domestic rating pool including the prescribed amount for Enterprise Zones.

  (2) Item 1(i)(a): The Transitional decrease adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped locally due to the revised transitional arrangements under the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rating Acts 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  (3) Item 1(i)(b): The empty property relief adjustments include voids and partially occupied hereditaments. Figures up to 1994–95 are as reported by authorities. The 1995–96 figure includes allowances for the increase in the gross rates yield and for economic recovery.

  (4) Item 1(i)(c): Charitable rate relief for 1995–96 includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rates yield.

  (5) Item 1(i)(d): Discretionary relief granted to charities non-profit making organisations and for other reasons, for 1995–96 includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rates yield.

  (6) Item 1(ii)(a) and (b): The allowances for the costs and losses incurred by local authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers, including the latest estimates of additional billing and software costs arising from the Non-Domestic Rating Acts.

  (7) Item 1(ii)(c): City Offset-a preliminary estimate for 1995–96 (£6.5 million) of the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool on account of the local rate in the City. It is the amount which will be retained by the authority to meet its own expenditure.

  (8) Item 1(iii)(a): Net adjustment in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous year's rates settled in that year.

  (9) Item 1(iii)(b): The revisions to contributions line applies only to estimated outturn revisions to the provisional contributions for 1994–95. For earlier years all figures are already based upon the outturn contributions.

  (10) Item 2: The rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list times the multiplier, and adjusted for appeals and other changes in respect of previous years. The 1995–96 figure is calculated as the estimated Rateable Value of £2,803 million times the multiplier, less the effect of the transitional arrangements.

  (11) Item 3: The 1995–96 figure for crown properties includes and allowance for the effect of transition.

  (12) Item 4(a) and (b): The contribution from central government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income forgone arising from the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rating Acts 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  (13) Where figures have been rounded there may be a small discrepancy between totals and the sum of constituent items.

  Support Services
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for establishing an accounting framework for local authority support service costs, as proposed in the White Paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services."

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have today tabled regulations under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 which will require local authorities to publish annually a statement of support service costs. This will illustrate the full costs of the professional support services to which the Government are extending compulsory competitive tendering, and will show the costs of these services to authorities' front-line service departments.

  The proposals for SSSCs have been developed in close and productive consultation with the local authority associations, the Audit Commission, the Accounts Commission for Scotland, and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. A consultation draft of the regulations was issued by my Department on 22 February 1994. Comments were received from 194 local authorities and other interested parties.

  In the light of those comments, I have decided that the first SSSCs will be required for 1995–96, rather than 1994–95 as proposed in February, to ensure that authorities have good time to prepare. The regulations also incorporate other technical improvements responding to comments and suggestions received.
  882
  Five support services are to become subject to CCT—legal services, construction and property services, IT, finance and personnel services. Parliament has already approved orders under section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 making legal services and construction property services "defined activities", for the purposes of CCT. The SSSC regulations which I have tabled today relate to these services, designating them as "specified activities" to be covered in SSSCs. The Government will, over the next few months, place before Parliament CCT orders for the other three support services. Subject to Parliament's approval of the orders, the Government will table further SSSC regulations bringing them also into the scope of SSSCs.

  London boroughs, metropolitan authorities, and joint committees of these authorities are required to produce an SSSC from 1995–96 onwards. Shire authorities, and joint committees of shire authorities, will be required to produce a SSSC from 1996–97, or the second financial year after the coming into being of an authority newly established or reorganised following local government review, should that be later. SSSCs will also be produced by unitary authorities in Wales and by new police authorities established under the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994 in due course. SSSCs will be introduced in Scotland under separate legislative procedures.

  Local authorities' support services cost more than £4 billion a year. SSSCs will make available authoritative information on these costs, and will be of value to local

  883
  taxpayers, local authority members, and those responsible for the front-line local authority services, who are the customers for support services and bear the costs. The information will enable informed discussion of support service costs, and promote efficiency and value for money.

  I have placed a list of responses to the consultation proposals in the Library, through which copies of individual responses may be obtained.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Data Cross-matching
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings he expects from the scheme involving the cross-matching of council tax and housing benefits data obtained from London local authorities with data held by his Department; and what estimate he has made of the number of(a) records to be matched, (b) the likely number of mismatches and (c) withdrawn applications for benefits; and if he will place in the Library the background reports on the implementation of the scheme.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A pilot exercise is currently taking place involving 24 London boroughs. The savings from the pilot are expected significantly to outweigh the costs. Around 800,000 records have been received and matched against departmental records. Three per cent. of the records have been classified as containing inconsistent data and have been referred for further consideration prior to any investigation. No estimate has been made of the numbers of applications withdrawn as a result of the pilot. A full evaluation will take place before a decision is taken on future developments. A copy of the feasibility report will be placed in the Library.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security applicants have been refused benefits under the habitual residence test since it came into operation; and how many of these were born in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Provisional figures from the Benefits Agency indicate that 6,388 applicants failed to satisfy the habitual residence test. Approximately 2,300 of these were asylum seekers and were entitled to income support under the urgent cases provisions. The other information is not available because the place of birth is not recorded when benefit is claimed.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applicants for(a) grants and (b) loans have been turned down in each region in each year since the social fund came into operation.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information that is readily available is set out in the tables.

  The figures are for the number of applications that have been refused; some applicants will have made more than one application in any given year.
  884

  Social fund applications—refusals Southern Territory

  Year

  Application

  Number of nil awards

  1990–91

  Grants

  95,104

  Loans

  121,362

  1991–92

  Grants

  207,478

  Loans

  168,874

  1992–93

  Grants

  265,458

  Loans

  204,929

  1993–94

  Grants

  283,003

  Loans

  215,964

  1994 to October

  Grants

  170,103

  Loans

  134,979

  Wales and Central Territory

  Year

  Application

  Number of nil awards

  1990–91

  Grants

  133,568

  Loans

  164,674

  1991–92

  Grants

  270,366

  Loans

  214,148

  1992–93

  Grants

  316,298

  Loans

  247,881

  1993–94

  Grants

  337,620

  Loans

  260,557

  1994 to October

  Grants

  211,637

  Loans

  163,287

  Scotland and Northern Territory

  Year

  Application

  Number of nil awards

  1990–91

  Grants

  140,711

  Loans

  174,961

  1991–92

  Grants

  257,970

  Loans

  231,969

  1992–93

  Grants

  283,006

  Loans

  257,510

  1993–94

  Grants

  302,330

  Loans

  276,582

  1994 to October

  Grants

  178,716

  Loans

  171,425

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications in each region in each year since the fund was established were turned down even though the applicant fulfilled qualifying criteria due to local budgeting restriction for(a) community care grants and (b) social fund loans.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not readily available prior to 1990–91. Such information as is available is set out in the tables. It is for Benefits Agency territories.

  Social Fund applications—refusals on grounds of insufficient priority

  Southern Territory

  Year

  Application

  Reason for refusal insufficient priority

  1990–91

  Grants

  13,527

  Loans

  31,867

  1991–92

  Grants

  21,352

  Loans

  42,353

  1992–93

  Grants

  24,971

  Loans

  61,478

  885

  Wales and Central Territory

  Year

  Application

  Reason for refusal insufficient priority

  1990–91

  Grants

  15,942

  Loans

  50,605

  1991–92

  Grants

  28,813

  Loans

  62,579

  1992–93

  Grants

  32,401

  Loans

  89,139

  Scotland and Northern Territory

  Year

  Application

  Reason for refusal insufficient priority

  1990–91

  Grants

  16,449

  Loans

  57,486

  1991–92

  Grants

  29,437

  Loans

  81,056

  1992–93

  Grants

  27,021

  Loans

  98,969

  Notes:

  (1) Figures for 1993–94 have not been provided. This is because information at the level requested could only be derived from a mixture of refusal data by application held under the old computer system and item level data reported by the new system. National refusal statistics by item are provided in the Secretary of State's Annual Report on the Social Fund 1993–94, a copy of which is available in the library.

  (2) Statistics on reasons for refusal for the current year are only available by individual item refused. The national figures for April to October 1994 are:

  Grants: 211,770

  Loans: 1,096,649

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for social fund assistance have been made in each regional office area in each year

  Number of applications received by each area directorate (AD) 1991 to 1994 financial years—Annex B

  Territory

  Area

  Type

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Southern

  AD1 Anglia

  Loans

  76,567

  88,760

  91,757

  Grants

  41,876

  55,820

  51,964

  AD2 Chilterns

  Loans

  75,065

  93,266

  101,752

  Grants

  39,681

  48,105

  50,312

  AD3 South London and West Sussex

  Loans

  93,657

  108,796

  111,128

  Grants

  40,899

  48,912

  53,612

  AD4 West Country

  Loans

  109,242

  127,886

  135,631

  Grants

  50,442

  60,894

  64,150

  AD5 East London and Essex

  Loans

  85,554

  99,496

  109,885

  Grants

  46,837

  58,933

  62,690

  AD6 South East

  Loans

  88,306

  110,935

  121,672

  Grants

  41,401

  50,228

  56,883

  AD7 Wessex

  Loans

  81,167

  95,204

  101,384

  Grants

  36,461

  44,668

  46,173

  Number of applications received by each area directorate 1991 to 1994 financial years

  Territory

  Area

  Type

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Wales and Central

  AD1 East Midlands

  Loans

  86,209

  100,383

  104,915

  Grants

  45,886

  53,895

  57,532

  886
  since the social fund came into operation in terms of (a) community care grants and (b) social fund loans.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 30 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about applications to the Social Fund (SF) for grants and loans by regional office for each year since the SF began.
  Since the formation of the Benefits Agency (BA) in April 1991, BA offices are grouped into Districts and these Districts are grouped into Area Directorates within three Territorial Directorates. Prior to April 1991 Departmental local offices were organised into seven regional areas.
  Information for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 is not available by regional area. Details of the number of applications for grants and loans by regional area for the period April 1990 to March 1991 are provided at Annex A. Details of the number of applications for grants and loans by Area Directorate from April 1991 to March 1994 are provided at Annex B.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Number of applications received by each regional area 1990–91—Annex A

  Region name

  Grants

  Loans

  London north

  74,430

  194,169

  London south

  58,947

  178,050

  Midlands

  90,970

  231,065

  North east

  111,314

  303,822

  North west

  100,896

  272,924

  Scotland

  122,830

  308,619

  Wales and south-west

  69,928

  199,776

  887

  Number of applications received by each area directorate 1991 to 1994 financial years

  Territory

  Area

  Type

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  AD2 Midlands South West

  Loans

  91,453

  99,525

  95,142

  Grants

  52,312

  59,072

  59,604

  AD3 West Mercia

  Loans

  100,381

  118,941

  118,822

  Grants

  52,486

  62,353

  63,983

  AD4 Wales

  Loans

  123,634

  139,730

  141,972

  Grams

  64,247

  75,638

  81,996

  AD5 Merseyside

  Loans

  139,001

  150,964

  156,066

  Grants

  62,143

  68,081

  72,964

  AD6 Greater

  Loans

  111,396

  128,973

  135,130

  Manchester

  Grants

  54,445

  61,649

  64,386

  AD7 Lancashire

  Loans

  89,175

  102,281

  106,323

  and Cumbria

  Grants

  46,099

  53,800

  55,932

  Number of applications received by each area directorate 1991 to 1994 financial years

  Territory

  Area

  Type

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Scotland and Northern

  AD1 Tyne Tees

  Loans

  147,134

  153,145

  160,140

  Grants

  76,849

  83,435

  87,584

  AD2 South

  Loans

  120,638

  133,953

  135,633

  Yorkshire

  Grants

  59,813

  65,935

  66,562

  AD3 North and

  Loans

  99,605

  111,045

  117,657

  West Yorkshire

  Grants

  48,621

  58,335

  62,877

  AD4 Glasgow and Paisley

  Loans

  146,928

  151,623

  154,914

  Grants

  66,716

  68,317

  74,739

  AD5 North, Central

  Loans

  114,691

  120,823

  125,576

  and West Scotland

  Grants

  57,533

  60,878

  63,185

  AD6 East Scotland

  Loans

  90,524

  99,574

  104,136

  Grants

  42,637

  46,294

  46,741

  Hostel Accommodation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents for whom social security hostel accommodation payments are made are currently housed in sheds, garages and tents at such hostels.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am not aware of any case for which housing benefit is in payment in such circumstances.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of current invalidity benefit claimants with post codes of(a) G72, (b) G73 and (c) the Toryglen residents of G42.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of invalidity benefit 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.
  888
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Thomas McAvoy, dated 30 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) recipients in certain Glasgow postal areas.
  Information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because Benefits Agency District areas do not correspond with postcode boundaries.
  Residents within Glasgow postcode areas G72 and G73 are dealt with by the Agency's East Kilbride Benefit Office. Residents within the G42 postcode area are dealt with by the Glasgow Laurieston District Office.
  Prior to 14 November 1994, Rutherglen Benefit Office dealt with postcode areas G45, G72 and G73. With effect from 14 November 1994, IVB cases formerly dealt with by the Rutherglen office were transferred to either Laurieston District Office for residents of postal area G45 or East Kilbride Benefit Office for residents of postal areas G72 and G73.
  The latest available figures, at 31 October 1994, are prior to that change and I have therefore provided at Annex A a table giving the number of IVB customers at the Laurieston, East Kilbride and Rutherglen offices on that date.
  The offices in question have responsibility for a far wider geographical area covering other postcode areas. Figures could be obtained relating specifically to those areas you require only at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  889

  Number of IVB customers at offices within Glasgow (Laurieston) District at 31 October 1994—Annex A

  Laurieston

  7,395

  East Kilbride

  3,735

  Rutherglen

  4,281

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost so far to the Child Support Agency of its legal advice.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 30 November 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the cost of legal advice to the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency incurs no legal costs as legal advice and other legal services are absorbed by the Department of Social Security central budgets.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints the Child Support Agency has received from people and their representatives about the working operations of the agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 30 November 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of complaints received by the Child Support Agency.
  From 5 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 the Agency recorded 10,886 complaints. Latest figures available show that the Agency has received a further 9,700 complaints since April 1994. The Agency does not distinguish between complaints against the operations of the Agency and those concerning child support legislation.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social.Security (1) how many parents with care in receipt of.family credit at each child support agency reporting centre have received any maintenance(a) direct from the non-custodial parent and (b) via the Child Support Agency;

  (2) how many parents with care not in receipt of benefit at each reporting centre have received any maintenance (a) direct from the non-custodial parent and (b) via the Child Support Agency;

  (3) how many parents with care in receipt of income support at each Child Support Agency reporting centre have received any maintenance (a) direct from the non-custodial parents and (b) via the Child Support Agency;

  (4) how many parents with care in receipt of disability working allowance at each Child Support Agency reporting centre have received any maintenance (a) direct from the non-custodial parent and (b) via the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not a business requirement of the agency and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  890
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many parents with care at each Child Support Agency reporting centre have been taken off income support after receiving maintenance payments;

  (2) how many parents with care at each Child Support Agency reporting centre have been taken off income support and are now in receipt of family credit after receiving maintenance payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The information the hon. Gentleman requires could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the fifth report of the Social Security Committee of Session 1993–94, HC 470, on the operation of the Child Support Act.

  Mr. Burt
  We are still evaluating the contents of the Select Committee's report and we will respond in clue course with proposals for change. No final decisions have yet been taken.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what level the £35 limit above which occupational pensions are deducted from unemployment benefit could be raised without the cost exceeding the estimated saving from extending such deductions to people aged under 55 years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 29 November,Official Report, column 631.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Name

  Joining date

  Leaving dale

  Melinda Libby

  3 May 1988

  24 July 1989

  Charles Hendry

  25 July 1989

  15 December 1989

  Ian Stewart

  16 August 1990

  10 April 1992

  Jeremy Mayhew

  27 April 1992

  12 April 1993

  Peter Barnes

  4 May 1993

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, currently ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;
  891
  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments are, however, required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94, the Department of Social Security paid 94 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quarantine Regulations
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to alter the quarantine regulations for dogs entering the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Agriculture Select Committee has recently published a report recommending changes to the rabies quarantine regulations.

  The Government share the concern of the committee that it would never support a change which would increase the likelihood of rabies entering the United Kingdom. The question of whether any other arrangements can offer the same or better protection than quarantine is essentially a technical one which the Government will need to consider carefully. The onus is one those recommending change to demonstrate that it offers at least as good a protection as quarantine.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how a dog or cat has to comply with the new import regulations for traded animals as far as vaccination and identification are concerned.

  Mrs. Browning
  The regulations require that a dog or cat must have been vaccinated against rabies using an inactivated vaccine after the age of three months and at least six months before dispatch to the United Kingdom. In addition, at least one month after vaccination a blood sample must be taken and tested to confirm that the vaccine has been effective. The only approved method of identification for such imports is by an implanted microchip transponder.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all registered animals entering the country since the introduction of the traded animal legislation last summer have complied with the requirements of the new importation rules.

  Mrs. Browning
  Of the two dog s and one cat imported under the new arrangements set out in article 10(3) of EC directive 92/65 one dog has been put into quarantine, because the necessary microchip identification was absent.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to 892
  provide information via Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF has placed selected statistical information on Internet, as part of its participation in the pilot CCTA Government information service launched on 10 November. As a result, up to 20 years of agriculture and food statistics are now accessible on Internet. A range of background information about the Department's work and publications is also available, and the MAFF helpline has enhanced its service by introducing an E-mail address for communicating with Internet users.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what prosecutions have resulted in each of the last five years from fraud against the CAP; how much has been recovered; what fines have been imposed; and what equivalent information he has in respect of(a) Italy, (b) Greece and (c) Spain.

  Mr. Jack
  The information for the United Kingdom for the four years 1990 to 1993 is as follows. Information for earlier years is not readily available.

  Year

  Numbers of prosecutions

  Amounts recovered £

  Fines £

  1990

  26

  3,136

  23,100

  1991

  20

  70,349

  223,650

  1992

  31

  301,601

  557,170

  1993

  31

  14,955

  309,795

  We have no equivalent data available relating to other member states.

  Rabies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will estimate the results of the oral vaccination of foxes in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1993 and the first half of 1994; and if he will give the number of cases of rabies in both domestic animals and wild animals in Germany during the same period.

  (2) how many cases of rabies in human beings were reported in eastern Europe during 1993 and in the first half of 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information the hon. Member requires can be found in the "Rabies Bulletin Europe", compiled by the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for rabies surveillance and research. This is published on a quarterly basis with a consolidated report issued at the end of each year. Copies of the consolidated reports for the last five years and the two quarterly reports issued so far this year have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many confirmed cases of spongiform encephalopathies in canines there have been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy has never been confirmed in canines in the United Kingdom, or as far as the Ministry is aware, anywhere else in the world.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Council of Fisheries Ministers held in Brussels on 23 November.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 November to the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier),Official Report, columns 316–17.

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to examine milk price rises and the role of the Milk Marque.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friends the Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales and the President of the Board of Trade examined the outcome of Milk Marque's selling arrangements when they turned down the Dairy Trade Federation's request for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the summer. Now that the milk marketing scheme has come to an end the milk market is subject to the normal competition rules. Scrutiny of the trading behaviour of Milk Marque is now a matter for the competition authorities.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress so far made to eradicate salmonella from eggs.

  Mrs. Browning
  Following a report of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food on Salmonella in Eggs, the Government ceased to require the monitoring of commercial egg laying flocks for salmonella and the compulsory slaughter of those infected with salmonella enteritidis in February 1993. Controls on breeding flocks were brought into line with those required under Council directive 92/117/EEC later that year. A survey of home produced eggs carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service in 1991 revealed that 99.3 per cent. of six-egg packs tested were found not to contain salmonella enteritidis. The steering group for the microbiological safety of food is considering the need for a further survey in 1995. The Government continue to fund research into the control of salmonella in poultry and the survival of salmonella in eggs. The egg industry is actively consolidating best practice for the transport, handling and storage of eggs into an industry code of practice. Much of the industry already had adopted such procedures.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the high cost of the common agricultural policy prior to the introduction of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend is in regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters concerning the cost of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications of the European Communities 894
  (Finance) Bill for the future of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Communities (Finance) Bill does not of itself have direct implications for the future of the common agricultural policy. CAP expenditure is constrained by the agricultural guideline, a legally binding ceiling. Its growth is restricted to 74 per cent. of the growth in EC GNP. As a result, CAP expenditure as a proportion of the total EC budget will continue to fall. It currently represents 50 per cent. of the total EC budget, as compared with 70 per cent. when the guideline was first introduced in 1988.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will place a copy of the European Commission report on reform of the common agricultural policy in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This report, entitled "EC Agriculture in the 21st Century", has now been published in the Journal "European Economy" on behalf of the European Commission's Directorate-General II (Economy and Finance) Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  I welcome the Commission's decision to publish this radical look at the common argriculture policy and shall be study it with interest.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively;

  (2) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their departmental reports. For 1993–94, MAFF paid 85 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the special advisers employed by his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they(a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Jack
  The names of special advisers who have joined or left the Department in the last five years is as follows:
  895

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Joined

  Keith Adams

  —

  —

  Elizabeth Cottrell, Ken Leggett

  David Rutley

  Left

  Richard Gueterbock

  —

  —

  Keith Adams

  Elizabeth Cottrell, Ken Leggett

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage has been put into regeneration of the natural habitat in hill farming; and if he will evaluate the effect this will have on hill farm incomes.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: The environmentally sensitive areas scheme includes provisions for annual payments to farmers for the regeneration of heather moorland and other upland habitats. Some 16,000 hectares of land are being managed under those tiers of the scheme in England. Other schemes also provide assistance to hill farmers for habitat enhancement but it is not possible to quantify the area of land benefiting from those schemes. It is not possible to isolate the effect which any of these measures will have on hill farm incomes.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any of those holding the licences to export live animals from Plymouth on the night of 21 November have any previous convictions for animal cruelty; who are these people; and what their specific convictions are for.

  Mrs. Browing
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: There is no requirement for such persons to be licensed. We are aware that some involved recently in the export of animals may have past convictions for welfare offences, but prohibition from engaging in the trade is not a penalty provided for by statute.

  Secret Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) top secret and (b) secret files his Department holds.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: This Department operates a de-centralised record-keeping system and no central records, either of files or of its individual classification, are kept. There is unlikely to be a great number of top secret and secret files but because no central record is kept in MAFF to obtain this information by a departmental inquiry to all the various registries would be time consuming and at a disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the basis of calculating savings on his Department's competing for quality programme; and if he will have a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Savings and efficiency gains against the Department's competing for quality programme are calculated against a baseline of the annual cost of the existing activities before market testing. For costing purposes, it would be expected that full costs, representing the total cost of resources used in providing a particular service, including the direct costs of the service and a proportional share of overhead costs, would be used.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 135, if he will list the 82 support activities which have been examined in relation to the competing for quality programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Counselling
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out his Department's arrangements for counselling service personnel and ex-service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  There are many forms of counselling, ranging from an interview or discussion with a commanding officer or chaplain to a series of sessions with a doctor, professional social or welfare worker or counsellor, and covering the whole range of personal and professional problems. Illustrative examples would be: the provision of marriage guidance counselling for serving members of the forces and their dependants in Germany through a grant to Relate—to replicate facilities in the United Kingdom— active programmes for the prevention and treatment of the condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder; and a comprehensive system of education and treatment in relation to alcohol abuse. Counselling of former service personnel would generally be through those channels available to the population at large, for example, the national health service or local authorities.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) by grade those members of his Department who have left his Department in the last two years to join defence or defence-related companies, (b) the companies involved and (c) the number joining each company.
  897
  Mr. Freeman
  I have placed a list in the House of Commons Library answering this question and have written to the hon. Member with the details.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the value, (b) the source of finance and (c) the work carried out over the last five years by the Defence Research Agency for the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for such matters rests with the chief executive of the Defence Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 1 December 1994:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question concerning work carried out by the Defence Research Agency for the government of Indonesia over the last five years.
  The Defence Research Agency was established in April 1991 by bringing together the Royal Aerospace Establishment, Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment and the Admiralty Research Establishment. Since that date the DRA has undertaken no work for the government of Indonesia
  Complete records are not available for the period prior to April 1991, but a check of those that are still held has not come up with any instances of work being carried out for the government of Indonesia during the two years in question.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which dates the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff visited Indonesia last year; at whose invitation and at whose expense.

  Mr. Soames
  Neither the Chief of Defence Staff nor the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff visited Indonesia in 1993. The Chief of Defence Staff visited Indonesia from 8 to 12 October 1994. The Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff visited Indonesia from 27 February to 2 March 1994. Both visits were at the invitation of their Indonesia counterparts. Travel costs arising from both visits were met by my Department; accommodation was provided by the hosts.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the Ministry of Defence establishments at which tests are carried out using animals and (b) the total number of tests at each establishment over the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Experiments using animals were carried out in the period 1989–1993 at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, the Defence Research Agency at Alverstoke and the Institute of Aviation Medicine, now the Centre for Human Sciences.

  Experiments are carried out only when it is judged essential, and fully meet both the spirit and letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The locations are registered places under that Act with relevant staff being licensed by the Home Office and subject at all times to Home Office inspection. The total number of experiments for the past five years is as follows:

  1989: 9,129

  1990: 8,146

  1991: 6,100

  1992: 4,500

  1993: 6,796

  Lockheed
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, columns 138–9, if he will list (a) the meetings held with Market Access International and (b) the representations received from Market Access International regarding the Lockheed C130-J by his ministerial colleagues or staff.

  Mr. Freeman
  To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor any of my ministerial colleagues, or our staff, have either received representations from Market Access International, or met any of its personnel in connection with the Hercules rolling replacement programme.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence: (1) how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within(a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice; and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month, (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months;

  (2) of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months, respectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for such matters rests with the chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from M. J. Dymond to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 1 December 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the bills paid by his Department during the last month for which figures are available were paid within (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months from receipt of invoice, and how many were over the date for payment by (i) up to one month (ii) up to two months, (iii) up to three months, (iv) up to six months and (v) over six months.
  You also asked the Secretary of State for Defence, of the bills currently awaiting payment in his Department, how many are over the advised payment date by (a) up to one month, (b) up to two months, (c) up to three months, (d) up to six months and (e) over six months respectively. These matters fall to me, as Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency, for reply.
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departments, however, are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in the Departmental Reports. For financial year 1993–94 Ministry of Defence paid 99.99 per cent. of its bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice.
  The MOD bill payment office at Liverpool also measure their performance against the higher departmental standard of payment within eleven working days of receipt of a valid invoice. They are currently achieving 97 per cent.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of each type of armoured personnel carrier and light tank surplus to his Department's requirements have been or are to be sold in the 1994–95 financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:
  899

  Vehicle Type

  Quantity

  CENTURION Armoured Recovery Vehicle MK2

  54

  HUMBER 1 TON PIG Armoured Personnel Carrier

  109

  CHIEFTAIN Main Battle Tank MK10

  29

  CHIEFTAIN Armoured Vehicle Recce

  1

  ABBOT 105mm Self Propelled Gun

  15

  SULTAN Armoured Command Vehicle

  17

  FOX 30 mm Gunned Combat Vehicle Recce (Wheeled)

  2

  SCORPION 76mm Gunned Combat Recce (Tracked)

  40

  FERRET Scout Car

  35

  SARACEN Armoured Personnel Carrier (Wheeled)

  16

  432 Armoured Personnel Carrier

  78

  SALADIN 76mm Gunned Armoured Car

  1

  434 Tracked Engineer Support Vehicle

  8

  M109 GUNS 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer

  117

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom, and under what procedure, armoured personnel carriers and light tanks surplus to his Department's requirements have been sold since 1985; and what financial gain has resulted for Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Disposals Sales Agency as a general rule sells surplus armoured fighting vehicles, of all types, by invitation to tender. Occasionally, private treaty sales have been agreed, normally to collectors/museums or companies involved in refurbishment and update work aiming to sell similar vehicles overseas. More recently, vehicles have been sold to companies for smelting. Sales to acceptable foreign Governments are either by direct contract or through an agent accredited to the purchaser. Any vehicle which is to be exported requires an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. Vehicles which have ordnance fitted are either demilitarised prior to sale or sold to companies which intend to market them for export and have appropriate firearms licences.

  Details of financial gain to HMG would require disproportionate effort to establish as previous records are not readily available. It is not our policy to reveal the details of purchasers without their written permission.

  Military Contracts
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will take steps to prevent military personnel from evading the terms of their military contracts by deliberate law-breaking;

  (2) what evidence he has received of deliberate law-breaking by young Army personnel in order to be dismissed from the service and evade their service contract obligation.

  Mr. Soames
  Although statistical evidence is not available, it is well known that soldiers do on occasion attempt to gain release from their engagement early by committing a disciplinary offence.

  Service personnel do not have contracts but serve under the royal prerogative. All service personnel are made aware that if they are found to have committed an offence under service law, they will be liable for the appropriate punishment. This may not necessarily include administrative discharge or dismissal even if that is the aim of the individual concerned. However, any personnel who commit offences under service or civilian law, for whatever reasons, risk incurring a criminal record.

  Military Corrective Training Centre,Colchester
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what dates since 1992 his Ministers have visited the military corrective training centre at Colchester;

  (2) when he last visited the military corrective training centre based in Colchester.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not visited the centre, but the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) visited it on 7 December 1992, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence visited it on 22 June this year.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans there are for privatising the military corrective training centre at Colchester;

  (2) what plans he has to further reduce staffing levels at the military corrective training centre based at Colchester;

  (3) what changes in manpower and costs have accompanied the evaluation currently taking place at the Colchester military corrective training centre;

  (4) what consideration he is giving to the further privatisation of any services connected with the military corrective training centre in Colchester;

  (5) what reports he has commissioned into the possible privatisation of the military corrective training centre based at Colchester or any of its services therein;

  (6) what discussions his Department has held aimed at the possibility of handing over to another body responsibility for the military corrective training centre based at Colchester.

  Mr. Soames
  A feasibility study has been conducted into market testing of the functions of the centre, the results of which are currently being considered by my Department. Appropriate consultation with trades unions and others will be undertaken before any final decisions are taken.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received against the privatisation of the catering services at the military corrective training centre at Colchester.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to the closure of the Colchester military corrective training centre.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to close the centre.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military equipment used for training for prisoners serving sentences at the military corrective training centre at Colchester.

  Mr. Soames
  The military equipment used for the training of detainees in "A" wing are as follows:

  Various weapons

  Radios

  Webbing and clothing

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the levels of staffing by definition and grade of the military corrective training centre in Colchester since 1992.
  901
  Mr. Soames
  The levels of staffing at the military corrective training centre since 1992 are:

  Number

  Rank/Grade

  Definition

  Military

  1

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Commanding Officer

  5

  Majors

  Section Managers

  3

  Captains

  1

  Flight Lieutenant

  3

  Warrant Officers

  Supervisors

  Class 1

  8

  Warrant Officers

  Security NCO

  Class 1

  1

  Warrant Officer

  APTC

  Class 2

  1

  Warrant Officer

  Catering

  Class 2

  5

  Warrant Officer

  Security NCO

  (Female)

  19

  Staff Sergeants

  Security NCO

  66

  Staff Sergeants

  Security NCO

  1

  Sergeant

  Medical

  1

  Sergeant

  Armoury

  1

  Sergeant

  Pay

  1

  Sergeant

  Pioneer

  9

  Se rgeants (RAF)

  Security NCO

  2

  Petty Officers (Male)

  Security NCO

  1

  Sergeant (RM)

  Security NCO

  1

  Sergeant

  Catering

  4

  Sergeant (Female)

  Security NCO

  6

  Sergeants (WRAF)

  Security NCO

  4

  Corporals

  Catering

  6

  Corporals

  PTI

  1

  Corporal Storeman

  Armoury

  2

  Corporals

  General Duties

  1

  Corporal

  Driver

  3

  Lance Corporals

  Medical

  2

  Lance Corporals

  Stores

  7

  Lance Corporals

  Catering

  Civilian

  1

  Retired Officer

  2

  Burnham Lecturers

  1

  Civil Servant

  Executive Officer

  4

  Instructional Officers

  5

  Administrative Officers (Civil Servants)

  2

  Administrative Assistants (Civil Servants)

  2

  Typists

  2

  Storekeepers

  The catering services were contractorised on 1 September 1994. All military catering staff, except for the W02 (Catering), left MCTC during the period June to September 1994.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will state what armaments and live ammunition, by category, are stored at the military corrective training centre in Colchester;

  (2) whether the military corrective training centre based at Colchester has a fully operational and stocked armoury on site;

  (3) whether prisoners at the military corrective training centre at Colchester have any contact during their incarceration with issued weapons and live ammunition.

  Mr. Soames
  The centre has a fully operational and stocked armoury. The weapons are for the use of detainees who will be returning to their units at the end of their 902
  period of detention. Detainees who are to be dismissed or discharged after serving their period of detention are not given weapon training.

  The following weapons are held at the centre, including personal weapons of members of staff:

  121 × 5.56 mm rifles

  35 × 9 mm pistols

  8 × 22" conversion kit

  15 × 7.62 mm rifles

  24 × 5.56 mm SUSAT rifles

  24 × 5.56 mm Iron rifles

  4 × 5.6 mm light support weapon (machine gun)

  The quantity of ammunition held for these weapons is small and varies on a daily basis depending on training programme.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the ranks held by all prisoners prior to their convictions and subsequent detention at the military corrective training centre in Colchester since 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Service personnel under sentence arrive at the military corrective training centre in the rank of private, or equivalent.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the director of Prison Services has paid a visit to the military corrective training centre at Colchester.

  Mr. Soames
  The director of Prison Services, Mr. Derek Lewis, visited the military corrective training centre, Colchester, on 24 March 1994.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to closing the present discharge wing at the Colchester military corrective training centre.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans at present to close the discharge wing at the centre.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give the numbers and ages of prisoners in military goals dismissed from the services for drug taking since 1992;

  (2) if he will give the numbers, ages and convictions of prisoners currently jailed at the military corrective training centre in Colchester since 1992;

  (3) when the decision was made to privatise the catering services establishment at the military corrective training centre in Colchester and what was the date of its commencement.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member on those subjects.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities of the Colchester military corrective training centre with regard to the rehabilitation of offenders into civilian life.

  Mr. Soames
  Personnel who are to be dismissed from the service or discharged after serving their period of detention undergo four weeks resettlement training in various trades. The training is designed to prepare them for civilian life by improving their trade skills and developing their self reliance and self respect.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the special advisers employed by
  903
  his Department in each of the last five years indicating when they (a) joined and (b) left his Department and the annual salary they received.

  Mr. Freeman
  A list of the special advisers employed by my Department in each of the last five years is give below:

  Name

  Joined the Department

  Left the Department

  Keith Simpson

  July 1988

  December 1990

  John Gardner

  June 1991

  March 1992

  Perry Miller

  April 1992

  February 1993

  Crispin Blunt

  February 1993

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from what vote and subhead compensation payments to former service women dismissed on grounds of pregnancy are currently made; how much has been allowed for in the 1994–95 supply estimates; what recourse has been made to the contingencies fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Compensation payments to former service women dismissed on grounds of pregnancy are made from class 1 vote 1—defence operational and support costs—subhead item J2(2). Within this, provision in the supply estimates for 1994–95 is £25 million. No recourse has been made to the contingencies fund. Some 70 per cent. of these cases have now been settled for an average of about £10,000 each.

  Commemorative and Memorial Services, Arnhem
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department made a financial charge to members of the armed forces to participate in the commemorative and memorial services at Arnhem.

  Mr. Soames
  Essential costs associated with the presence of service men in Arnhem were met from the public purse. The main British presence was provided by the Parachute Regiment. Each soldier and officer who attended was asked to pay £5 to cover the cost of recreational transport provided by the Dutch authorities. This arrangement was considerably cheaper and more convenient than if individuals had been left to find alternative means of transport.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments his Department made and to which United Kingdom warship builders, to encourage or support the submission of tenders for the replacement programme for 904
  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Historic Aviation Buildings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to preserve the historic aviation buildings at Farnborough, Hampshire from demolition; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Soames
  On current plans, the buildings occupied at present by the Defence Research Agency at Farnborough will be vacated in the latter part of 1996. We are in the process of defining a strategy for the future of the site. There are at present no plans to demolish any historic aviation buildings at Farnborough.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to issuing protective clothing to British service personnel in the Gulf conflict using malathion sprays on captured Iraqi service men; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Standard instructions are the MOD personnel applying dusting powder containing 1 per cent. malathion need not wear protective clothing unless performing lengthy collective treatment procedures. The relatively small number of Iraqi prisoners of war infested.with lice meant that individual.administration with dusting powder could take place and that collective spraying and protective clothing were not necessary. Protective clothing was, however, available had collective treatment taken place.

  Convoy, A1 Highway
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the mission of his Department's vehicle, registration number 16 AY 60, which formed part of a convoy that travelled on the A 1 highway on 28 October; at what location the convoy(a) commenced and (b) terminated its journey; what was the total number of vehicles in the convoy; what was the cargo of each vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The military convoy in question was undertaking a routine transport movement. It is not our policy, however, to discuss operational details of military movements.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force(a) Hawker Siddley Buccaneer, (b) English Electric Canberra and (c) Hawker Hunter aircraft are currently being preserved; what type marks they have; where they are currently based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  At present there are four Buccaneers, type mark 2B, in storage and 1 Canberra, type mark T4, held in storage at RAF St Athan. There are no Hawker Hunter aircraft being held in storage by the Royal Air Force. The Buccanneer aircraft have been purchased by Hanifield Metals and are being held for collection by the purchaser. The Canberra is held at present in the Fleet Management Reserve long-term reserve category.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying in each year since 1988 have led to an RAF police investigation being initiated; and how many of the investigations carried out in each year since 1988 have concluded that a breach of low flying regulations had occurred.

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not available in the format requested. The table below details the total number of investigations carried out by the RAF police flying complaints flight each year from 1988 to the end of 1993; and the number of those where the police confirmed a breach of flying regulations. The 1988 figure for the latter is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. It should be noted that, in addition to low flying incidents, the figures for the number of investigations include other military aircraft activity examined by the RAF police.

  Year

  Number of RAF Police FCF investigations

  Number of cases in which a breach was confirmed

  1988

  331

  not available

  1989

  423

  43

  1990

  571

  13

  1991

  411

  12

  1992

  718

  40

  1993

  686

  47

  The above figure of 47 confirmed breaches in 1993 is six more than was listed in the House of Commons Defence Committee Report, HC 314 of Session 1993–94, on low flying. Of these, three were omitted in error from the evidence provided to the Committee; in the other three cases details of the RAF police investigations were not known until after this evidence has been provided.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the 41 low flying avoidance breaches during 1993 listed in his Department's evidence to the Defence Select Committee—HC 314 of Session 1993–94 pp. 35–36—were found by the RAF police investigation not to have been inadvertent.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not the responsibility of the RAF police to determine whether a breach is inadvertent or deliberate. On receipt of an RAF police report, this is a matter for consideration by the commanding officer of the aircrew concerned, who will take into account the circumstances of the breach, and any factors such as bad weather or flight safety considerations which might be relevant, in determining whether disciplinary or other action is necessary.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent use of Tornado aircraft from Royal Air Force Cottesmore to perform low-level passes over a prison establishment.

  Mr. Soames
  Several low level passes over HM prison Stocken were made on 27 September 1994 at the request of HM Prison Service. This provided a noise distraction and assisted in resolving an incident at the prison.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many breaches of the Eshott avoidance area have taken place in each year since 1989; what measures have been taken to discourage microlight flying from this site on weekdays; and if he will list the measures taken 906
  since 1989 to reduce the incidence of breaches of this avoidance area.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of confirmed breaches of.the Eshott avoidance area for each year since 1989 are.as follows:

  1989: 0

  1990: 0

  1991: 2

  1992: 8

  1993: 3

  The operating times of the airfield, and the use to which it is put, are matters for the civil operator.

  In order to reduce the incidence of breaches, notices to airmen have been issued reminding military aircrews of the airfield's avoidance, which is marked on navigation charts and listed in the UK military low flying handbook. In addition, at the end of 1992, changes were made to instructions to foreign aircraft using RAF Spadeadam to ensure they avoid the airfield by a wider margin than previously.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the minimum authorised altitude of the flight by two Belgian air force Mirages which infringed the Sizewell power station avoidance area on 23 August 1993; and at what height the aircraft were flying at the time of the breach.

  Mr. Soames
  The two aircraft were authorised to operate at a minimum altitude of 2,000 ft minimum separation distance; the RAF police estimated the aircraft were flying at approx 1,000 ft above ground level at the time of the breach.

  Air Show (Bratislava)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military aircraft, and of what types, took part in the air show at Bratislava airport, Slovakia, on 20 and 21 August; what were the aims of British participation in the event; and what was the total cost of this participation.

  Mr. Soames
  The following RAF aircraft were present at the airshow in question:

  9 Hawks (Red Arrows)

  2 Hawks

  4 Tornado GR1

  2 Harrier

  1 Chinook

  1 Hercules

  Displays were flown by the Red Arrows and two of the Tornado GR1s. The other aircraft were on static display. All extra costs for accommodation, food and fuel were met by the organisers of the airshow.

  Attendance at this airshow was part of my Department's wider policy of enhancing military relations with countries of central and eastern Europe.

  RAF Bentwaters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with British
  907
  Aerospace concerning the use of RAF Bentwaters as a base in connection with the showground air combat range.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the air crash at Boscombe Down airfield on the evening of 26 September.

  Mr. Soames
  I am aware of a press report of such an incident. Staff at Boscombe Down have confirmed, however, that there was no crash at the unit on that date or, indeed, so far this year. The only flying which took place that night was the launch of two Royal Navy Sea King helicopters in support of an exercise.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many man hours were spent on repairs to Tornado ZA611 following its accident in December 1986; and on what dates the aircraft has been flown since its accident.

  Mr. Soames
  Tornado ZA611 was repaired in industry, and the details of the contract covering the repair remain commercially confidential. Since its accident, the aircraft was flown on 19, 22 and 28 January 1993. The aircraft has since been held in storage pending its entry into a modification programme, after which it will return to active service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the date and circumstances of the accident to Tornado F.3 serial number carried out on the aircraft since its accident, and by which unit; what is the estimated additional number of man hours required to complete repairs to the aircraft; and what is the estimated total cost of restoring the aircraft to front line service following its accident.

  Mr. Soames
  Tornado F3 ZE250 was damaged on 27 March 1992 during engine ground runs. To date, RAF tradesman have expended 9,025 man hours on the repair, and it is estimated that a further 7,090 man hours will be required before the aircraft can be restored to service. The labour costs of returning the aircraft to service are estimated at approximately £800,000. The cost of spares and materials, which have been provided from existing stocks, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  International Chart Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the International Chart Service North sea-southern sheet 1:750,000 2182A, INT.1043, published at Taunton on 10 August 1973.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our usual practice to lay such charts in the Library. They are widely available, however, from commercial sources.

  Hercules Fleet
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the future of the RAF's Hercules fleet.

  Mr. Freeman
  We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Staffing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown by military rank and civilian grade of the number of service personnel and civilian staff employed in(a) the personnel and training command and (b) the logistics command.

  Mr. Soames
  The strength of the two commands as at 1 October 1994 is as follows:

  Military Personnel

  Personnel and Training Command

  Logistics Command

  Officer Ranks

  1 Air Chief Marshal

  2

  1

  Air Marshal

  —

  1

  Air Vice-Marshal

  9

  3

  Air Commodore

  29

  15

  Group Captain

  110

  56

  Wing Commander

  322

  182

  Squadron Leader

  802

  514

  Flight Lieutenant

  1,764

  565

  Flying Officer/Pilot Officer

  905

  59

  Senior Medical Officer

  152

  6

  Junior Medical Officer

  129

  4

  Dentist

  113

  —

  Chaplains

  89

  —

  Officer Total

  4,426

  1,406

  Airmen Ranks

  Master Aircrew Warrant Officer

  284

  215

  Flight Sergeant/Chief Technician

  764

  1,054

  Sergeant

  1,733

  1,463

  Corporal

  2,320

  2,434

  Junior Technician/Senior Aircraftman/Leading Aircraftman

  3,436

  3,344

  Aircraftman

  400

  —

  Officer Designate

  73

  —

  Airmen Total

  9,010

  8,510

  Overall Total

  13,436

  9,916

  Note:

  1 One of these officers (Chief of the Air Staff) appears on the strength of Personnel and Training Command but is employed elsewhere. This is the case for a number of other personnel, but separate figures could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Civilian Personnel

  Personnel and Training Command

  Logistics Command

  Non-industrial grades

  G31

  —

  1.0

  G52

  2.0

  5.0

  G63

  3.5

  12.0

  G74

  9.0

  46.0

  Senior Executive Officer

  31.0

  59.0

  Higher Executive Officer/Higher Executive Officer (D)

  95.5

  224.0

  Executive Officer

  260.0

  479.5

  Administrative Officer

  576.5

  1,186.0

  Administrative Assistant

  479.5

  642.5

  Co-ordinator Anglo/American Relations

  0.5

  —

  Community Relations Adviser

  7.0

  —

  Mess Manager A

  1.0

  4.0

  Mess Manager B

  2.0

  1.0

  Retired Officer (Principal)

  9.0

  —

  909

  Civilian Personnel

  Personnel and Training Command

  Logistics Command

  Retired Officer 1

  27.0

  3.0

  Retired Officer 2

  100.0

  20.0

  Retired Officer 3

  42.0

  14.0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1.0

  1.0

  Personal Secretary

  46.0

  25

  Chief Typing Manager

  1.0

  2.0

  Typing Manager

  19.0

  13.0

  Typist

  282.0

  165.0

  Senior Scientific Officer

  4.0

  8.0

  Higher Scientific Officer

  4.0

  12.0

  Scientific Officer

  4.0

  11.0

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  2.0

  1.0

  Graduate Trainee

  —

  3.0

  Senior Instructional Officer

  18.0

  —

  Higher Instructional Officer

  93.0

  —

  Instructional Officer 1

  237.0

  3.5

  Instructional Officer 2

  39.0

  —

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  4.0

  158.0

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  16.0

  257.0

  Professional and Technology Officer

  11.0

  425.0

  Technician Grade 1

  19.0

  81.0

  Technician Grade 2

  2.5

  3.0

  Senior Telecommunication Technical Officer

  —

  36.0

  Higher Telecommunication Technical Officer

  2.0

  110.0

  Telecommunication Technical Officer

  2.0

  301.5

  Assistant Telecommunication Technical Officer

  5.0

  366.5

  Senior Librarian

  2.0

  —

  Librarian

  2.0

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  4.0

  —

  Historian 2

  2.5

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  4.0

  1.0

  Information Officer

  8.0

  —

  Curatorial Officer E

  3.0

  —

  Curatorial Officer F

  1.0

  —

  Senior Medical Officer

  1.0

  —

  Civilian Medical Practitioner

  5.0

  3.0

  Civilian Consultant

  5.0

  —

  Registrar

  1.0

  —

  Senior Psychologist

  3.0

  —

  Psychologist (Grade T)

  1.0

  —

  Senior Radiographer 2

  1.5

  —

  Senior Physiotherapist 1

  7.0

  1.0

  Senior Physiotherapist 2

  5.0

  —

  Senior Occupational Therapist 1

  1.0

  —

  Senior Occupational Therapist 2

  1.0

  —

  Head Occupational Therapist

  1.0

  —

  Occupational Therapist

  1.0

  —

  Senior Ophthalmic Optician

  1.0

  —

  Senior Orthoptist

  1.0

  —

  Speech Therapist 2

  1.0

  —

  Speech Therapist 3

  1.0

  —

  Dental Auxiliary 1

  6.0

  1.0

  Senior Optometrist C

  1.0

  —

  Staff Grade Practitioner

  1.0

  —

  Pharmacist E

  1.0

  —

  Nurse A

  5.0

  —

  Nurse D

  11.5

  —

  Nurse F

  2.0

  1.5

  Nurse G

  2.0

  2.0

  Chaplains Assistant

  4.0

  —

  Senior Social Worker

  2.0

  —

  910

  Civilian Personnel

  Personnel and Training Command

  Logistics Command

  Senior Investigating Officer

  1.0

  —

  Investigating Officer 1

  10.0

  —

  Investigating Officer 2

  35.0

  —

  Civilian Security Officer 3

  1.0

  —

  Civilian Security Officer 4

  3.0

  9.0

  Civilian Security Officer 5

  38.0

  81.0

  Radio Officer

  3.0

  —

  Communications Officer 2

  —

  2.0

  Communications Officer 3

  —

  11.0

  Communications Officer 4

  2.0

  15.0

  Chef/Chief Cook 1

  —

  1.0

  Senior Lecturer

  5.0

  5.0

  Lecturer

  35.0

  10.0

  Head Teacher 1

  2.0

  —

  Deputy Head Teacher 1

  1.0

  —

  Teacher

  4.0

  —

  Senior Graphics Officer

  1.0

  1.0

  Higher Graphics Officer

  5.0

  3.0

  Graphics Officer

  20.0

  11.0

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  —

  2.0

  Fire Service Officer 1

  1.0

  2.0

  Fire Service Officer 2

  2.0

  —

  Fire Service Officer 3

  3.0

  5.0

  Stores Officer Grade A

  —

  1.0

  Stores Officer Grade B

  —

  8.5

  Stores Officer Grade C

  —

  36.0

  Stores Officer Grade D

  1.0

  76.0

  Process and General Supervisory Class B

  —

  1.0

  Process and General Supervisory Class C

  —

  36.0

  Process and General Supervisory Class D

  1.0

  13.0

  Process and General Supervisory Class E

  1.0

  1.0

  Families Officer

  7.0

  5.0

  Station Warden

  19.0

  22.0

  Support Manager 2

  —

  2.0

  Support Manager 3

  9.0

  12.0

  Support Grade Band 1

  59.5

  61.0

  Support Grade Band 2

  83.0

  46.0

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officer 1

  2.0

  —

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officer 2

  1.0

  —

  Higher Professional Photographer

  1.0

  —

  Professional Photographer

  5.0

  5.0

  Total

  2,918.0

  5,139.5

  Industrial grades

  Carpenter

  8.0

  46.0

  Craftsman Instrument Worker

  —

  1.0

  Electrician

  —

  3.0

  Electronic Assembler 1

  —

  5.0

  Electronic Assembler 2

  —

  7.0

  Electronic Assembler 3

  —

  5.0

  Electroplater

  —

  2.0

  Fitter Aero Engine

  —

  141.0

  Fitter Airframe

  —

  277.0

  Fitter Avionics

  —

  7.0

  Fitter Electronics

  1.0

  186.0

  Fitter Engine

  —

  95.0

  Fitter General

  4.0

  132.0

  Fitter Motor Transport

  4.0

  58.0

  Fitter Ex Research and Development

  —

  1.0

  911

  Civilian Personnel

  Personnel and Training Command

  Logistics Command

  Fitter Turner

  1.0

  22.0

  Instrument Maker

  —

  98.0

  Machinist Woodworker

  —

  5.0

  Painter

  1.0

  19.0

  Spray Painter

  1.0

  1.0

  Aircraft Surface Finisher

  —

  21.0

  Sheet Metalworker

  —

  15.0

  Technician

  —

  61.0

  Turner

  —

  1.0

  Upholster

  —

  3.0

  Welder

  —

  6.0

  Armourer

  1.0

  13.0

  Chief Steward 1

  4.0

  1.0

  Chief Steward 2

  4.0

  2.0

  Steward 1

  27.0

  11.0

  Steward 2

  280.5

  122.5

  Mess Hand

  395.0

  177.5

  Head Cook

  12.0

  3.0

  Cook

  57.0

  31.0

  Cinema Projectionist

  4.0

  —

  Labourer Unskilled

  —

  2.0

  Explosive Maintenance Assistant

  —

  13.0

  Battery Charging Hand

  —

  1.0

  Cable Layer

  —

  12.0

  Cleaner

  4.0

  5.5

  Caretaker Keys

  1.0

  —

  Caretaker

  1.0

  —

  Craft Auxiliary A

  —

  7.0

  Craft Auxiliary B

  —

  32.0

  Driver Ambulance

  —

  1.0

  Driver Articulated

  —

  180.0

  Driver Crane

  3.0

  3.0

  Driver Non-Articulated

  49.0

  34.0

  Driver Passenger Vehicle

  35.0

  32.0

  Driver Winch Operator

  1.0

  —

  Driver Locomotive

  —

  5.0

  Crane Driver Overhead Travelling

  —

  1.0

  Fork Lift Truck Operator

  —

  14.0

  Experimental Worker

  1.5

  2.0

  Fabric Worker A

  —

  1.0

  Fabric Worker B

  —

  1.0

  Gardener/Groundsman

  4.0

  1.0

  Gardener/Groundsman 2

  4.0

  2.0

  Gardener/Groundsman Assistant

  2.0

  —

  Gas Plant Overseer

  —

  2.0

  Examiner 2

  —

  8.0

  Examiner 3

  —

  2.0

  Patrolman

  5.0

  —

  Handyman/Woman

  1.0

  1.0

  Hydraulic Test Wall Operator

  —

  3.0

  General Hand (Superior Duties)

  15.0

  54.0

  Labourer

  83.5

  29.5

  Machine Operator

  —

  3.0

  Medical Attendant

  —

  0.5

  Messenger

  17.5

  16.0

  Museum Attendant

  —

  1.0

  Metalliser

  —

  1.0

  Packing Case Maker 1

  —

  6.0

  Rangewarden

  9.5

  2.0

  Refuse Collector

  4.0

  4.0

  Safety Equipment Worker B

  —

  3.0

  Sewage Plant Attendant

  9.0

  2.0

  Shotblaster

  —

  6.0

  Slinger

  —

  6.0

  Senior Storekeeper

  20.0

  172.0

  Storekeeper

  69.5

  390.0

  Storekeeping Assistant 1

  9.00

  103.0

  Storekeeping Assistant 2

  18.0

  103.0

  Sub Officer

  7.0

  6.0

  Leading Fireman

  30.0

  21.0

  Fireman

  105.0

  75.0

  912

  Civilian Personnel

  Personnel and Training Command

  Logistics Command

  Hospital Porter

  10.0

  —

  Seamstress

  0.5

  —

  Servant 1

  1.0

  —

  Sterilising Assistant

  6.0

  —

  Tyre Refitter/Vulcaniser

  —

  2.0

  Total

  1,330.5

  2,950.5

  Notes:

  1 Grade 3 includes: Assistant Under Secretary.

  2 Grade 5 includes: Assistant Secretary, Deputy Chief Scientific Officer and Professional and Technology Director B.

  3 Grade 6 includes: Senior Principal, Academic Professor of Music, Senior Principal Scientific Officer and Professional and Technology Superintending Grade.

  4 Grade 7 includes: Principal, Statistician, Psychologist, Principal Professional and Technology Officer and Head Historian B.

  Footnote:

  Casual staff have not been included in the above figures.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects the recently launched offensives by Bosnian Government troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina have had on the safety of British personnel serving under United Nations command; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We do not assess that British personnel serving under United Nations command have been placed in any significantly greater danger by the recent Bosnian Government offensives. However, we remain very concerned about the upsurge in the fighting and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Bombing (Bihac)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has that Croatian Serb aircraft based in Udbira have bombed Bihac; and if he will publish that evidence.

  Mr. Soames
  On 19 November 1994, UN military observers observed two ORAO jet fighters in the vicinity of Bihac. One aircraft dropped its bombs and headed south; the other struck a building and crashed. This and other attacks were widely reported. Croatia is not known to possess ORAO aircraft and no Bosnian-Serb ORAO was reported to have been airborne at the time of attack. The Croatian Serb—Republic of Serb Krajina—airfield at Udbina lies to the south of Bihac and some of its armed ORAO aircraft were reported to have been airborne prior to the attacks at Bihac.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has of the dropping of napalm bombs on Bihac; and if he will publish that evidence.

  Mr. Soames
  A UN military observer reported that on 18 November 1994 a fixed-wing aircraft dropped three bombs on Bihac. From evidence collected by UNMOs at the impact points, one of the bombs was identified as a napalm bomb, but this was unexploded. The others were cluster bombs.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average and the median time his Department has taken to pay suppliers in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion of bills took more than six weeks to pay.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for such matters rests with the chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from M. J. Dymond to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 1 December 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average and the median time his Department has taken to pay suppliers in each of the last 12 months, and what proportion of bills took more than 6 weeks

  Month

  Number of bills received

  Percentage paid within 11 days

  Percentage paid within 30 days

  Number paid after 30 days

  October 1993

  258,459

  97.94

  99.99

  15

  November 1993

  277,925

  96.96

  99.98

  32

  December 1993

  258,203

  96.10

  98.09

  31

  January 1994

  249,488

  97.72

  99.99

  21

  February 1994

  244,325

  98.86

  99.99

  12

  March 1994

  283,141

  97.67

  99.98

  43

  April 1994

  272,224

  95.6

  99.99

  10

  May 1994

  272,133

  95.19

  99.98

  31

  June 1994

  250,732

  96.9

  99.99

  16

  July 1994

  244,214

  96.28

  99.91

  208

  August 1994

  231,125

  96.38

  99.99

  1

  September 1994

  209,821

  97.73

  99.99

  3

  3,051,790

  423

  All bills were paid wihtin six weeks of receipt at Liverpool.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide information via Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department already uses Internet to make information widely available. In particular, press releases are made available electronically through the.Central Office of Information to be accessible to users of Internet via data-star dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/
  914
  to pay. This matter falls to me, as Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency, for reply.
  2. Departments are required to provide details of their annual payment performance in their Departmental Reports. For financial year 1993/94, Ministry of Defence paid 99.9 percent of its bills In accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice.
  3. The MOD bill payment office at Liverpool also measure their performance against the higher departmental standard of payment within 11 working days of receipt of a valid invoice. They are currently achieving 97 percent.
  4. As the vast majority of bills are paid within the 11 day target the average and median over the last 12 months would not be meaningful, but I have listed below, for each of the last 12 months for which figures are available, information which I hope you find useful.

  Nexis. My Department was involved, with the US Department of Defense, in the early development of Internet and has used Internet facilities for research purposes for many years. Security considerations prevent its widespread use within my Department but we are currently considering extending our use of Internet, to include the provision of a facility for making some Defence information, currently published in open literature, available electronically in a similar format to.that adopted by the Central Computers and.Telecommunications Agency and HM Treasury.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Opinion Polls: General Elections
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider prohibiting the publication of national opinion polls in the week before a general election.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we have no plans to do so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the previous election it was widely reported that every single one of the national opinion polls was wrong? They gave 3 or 7 per cent. leads to the Labour Party. In the event, the Conservative Party gained over a 7 per cent. lead. We were told at the time that an in-depth investigation would be held within two years to discover why these errors arose. I have not seen the result of that. Can we be told the result of that and whether therefore the opinion polls are likely to be more accurate next time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can confirm that the opinion polls in the period leading up to the previous election were not accurate. Research was commissioned by the Market Research Society and there were a number of findings. It was discovered that the way in which the data was collected was not very sound. It was also discovered that not everyone in the High Street who was asked his opinion gave his true opinion. It has to be said that one would think, reading the opinion polls at the moment, that the Tories were going to lose the next election.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider suggesting to her colleagues that an unofficial approach is made to the pollsters to cease publishing results over the next six weeks in order that we can have a Christmas free of any threats of Cabinet suicide?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what they publish must be a matter for the pollsters themselves.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as well as getting rid of opinion polls, will the noble Minister also arrange to get rid of Peter Snow and his rather stupid swingometer which told us that if the result was repeated across the country the Labour Party would have 648 seats, the Conservatives one and the Monster Raving Loony Party two? While we are at it, can we get rid also of Peter Kellner and Ivor Crewe who are constantly telling us why people voted differently from the way they thought they should vote? Once we have got rid of all that, with the great help of the Prime
698
Minister and the Chief Whip in the other place we can then let the people of this country get on with getting rid of the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall set aside the fantasizing of the noble Lord on these matters and simply say this remains a matter for the pollsters. If they continue to be unreliable, clearly they will be out of business. It is in their own interests that they at least adopt techniques that are more representative of the research that they are trying to produce. Further, bans have been tried before and we know there is an enormous amount of circumvention. For example, other kinds of predictions will take the place of opinion polls. Canvassing returns could become the predictor of elections. Most other countries sell newspapers from other nations. In France there is a ban which has operated for many years now; but other countries speculate in their absence.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, has my noble friend ever heard of anyone in this House being polled, whether that be herself, myself, or any other Member of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have just been reminded that we do not get a vote. We, together with lunatics and others, do not get a vote. I am rather depressed because I have never been polled and I should like to be from time to time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Market Research Society. Will the Minister be good enough to inform the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that the Market Research Society has indeed published its detailed conclusions on the problems of polling in the previous election? I am sure he will be able to obtain a copy from the Library, or even buy a copy if he so wishes. My next question follows from what the Minister has just said about the alternative which, I am sure she will agree, is uninformed speculation which would be even worse than the inaccuracies which have been shown in certain polls.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is very much in the interests of the Market Research Society that the scientific basis of the polls and the information collected is sound. Therefore, I commend the report for reading. Also, much of the speculative information which would take the place of the opinion polls if they were banned would be a great deal more distorting than the poll information. Therefore, we have an interest in making sure that the information is sound.
There is another point which is worth making. On certain issues it is important that from time to time those of us who are politicians, in either House of Parliament, are given some idea of how the policies of any sitting government are perceived by the general public.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am a rare bird? I have only once been canvassed, in a local election, outside my constituency office. A lady came up to me and asked which way I would vote the following week. I said, "Tory". She

699
asked why. I said, "I am the local Member of Parliament". So she picked up her clipboard, said "You're not typical", and walked off.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot follow that!

Prisons: Assaults on Staff
3.14 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned that in 1993 there were 2,540 assaults on prison staff in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales; and, if so, what steps are being taken to improve matters.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be a change of tone. Assaults on prison staff are a matter of great concern. A reduction in the level of violence in prisons is a strategic priority for the prison service. We have taken a number of steps to improve matters, including tackling violent behaviour through work with prisoners, improved procedures for the control and supervision of prisoners' movements, improving staff skills and training in dealing with difficult and disturbed prisoners, analysing and learning from incidents of assault, and operating systems which reward good behaviour and penalise bad behaviour.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged for that Answer. I appreciate that a number of the offences are comparatively trivial, but it seemed to me that the total figure was rather alarming and apparently there is a rising trend. I am much encouraged by the Answer we have just been given. Can the Minister say whether there have been any special problems in the prisons which have suffered most from overcrowding? Can she also say whether there is enough information to form any opinion on whether there is any marked difference in behaviour by prisoners in the prisons run by outside firms?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot answer the last point because those prisons are very new. No doubt we shall continue to monitor the position and come back with the information.
It is interesting that the figures are worse for those prisons which are not overcrowded. There is some evidence to support that. It is an interesting phenomenon that the greatest problem is not in the crowded prisons but in the newer, more capacious prisons.
Happily, I am also able to say that the figures do not reflect a rising trend. There are signs that the trend is now on the decrease. There is still a rise year on year, but the increase this year over last year is lower than the increase last year over the previous year. We hope that that will continue.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any study has been undertaken
700
to relate such attacks to drug abuse inside prisons and to the extent to which drugs are finding their way in to prisons? If not, could not such a study be undertaken?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that many assaults have a connection with drugs. A number of programmes have now been introduced to address that particular issue—for example, offending behaviour programmes—some of which are very successful. There is also a violent offenders' programme, since attacks can be both violent and related to drugs. It is an issue which is being taken very seriously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was interesting, and indeed startling, to learn from the Minister that violence towards staff is greater in prisons which are not overcrowded. Will she be undertaking research to seek an explanation for that apparently paradoxical finding? Is it not also the case that, regardless of overcrowding, any increase in the absolute level must reflect the regrettable rise in the prison population in recent years?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I was able to say that the percentage of the prison population involved in assaults is also decreasing. There is still a rise year on year, but nevertheless the rate of that rise is slowing, and we would like to see that continue.
The noble Lord makes an important point. If there is no correlation between assaults and crowded prisons—and as the noble Lord knows, a great deal is being done to reduce overcrowded conditions—that is a phenomenon which we must look at.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not help if it were made clear that a prisoner who is charged successfully with having assaulted prison staff would not be released in any circumstances until the extreme end of his sentence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that where there has been a serious assault that constitutes another offence. That offence can be dealt with in the courts. It will be in addition to the offence for which the prisoner is serving a prison sentence. In the case of a less serious offence a number of measures can be taken, including adding days to the sentence which has already been imposed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that dispersal prisons are not overcrowded because they tend to hold high security prisoners? Is that the group of prisons in which assaults are rising most steeply?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not certain of that, but I know that the simple correlation between overcrowding and assaults is not made. Therefore, one would have to look at the reasons. I suspect that the point mentioned by the noble Lord is probably a contributory factor.
Lord Newall: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether there is any link between the threats against prison officers and the fact that prisoners are now

701
allowed to move from prison to prison without escorts? If there is no link, can she say why such moves are occurring?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, moving from prison to prison is not usually a cause of assault. It may be the cause of people disappearing while moving from prison to prison; and that is a very different offence. This Question refers to those prisoners who gratuitously assault prison officers in the course of their duty. That is a very serious matter indeed.

Sir Kenneth Dover
3.20 p.m.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refer to the Crown Prosecution Service the assertion by Sir Kenneth Dover that he was responsible for the death of Mr. Trevor Aston.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the investigation of possible criminal offences is a matter for the police. It is for them to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service if and when they consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings. I can tell your Lordships, however, that the police are looking into the details of the case.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full Answer.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that a Question on a specific judicial matter is appropriate for Question Time in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that it is appropriate. However, we have a proud tradition in this House of any Member being allowed to put any Question. It is a matter for the usual channels to determine whether a Question is appropriate in the proper sense of the word.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend. It is important. We should display in this House sufficient confidence in the criminal justice system dealing with such cases. The issue is not a matter for this House. It is a matter for the police and prosecution service.

Rent to Mortgage Scheme
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money has been spent on promoting rents-to-mortgages for local authority tenants under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and how many tenants have exercised their right to buy in this way.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government spent £414,000 on a national information campaign to coincide with the launch of the rent to
702
mortgage scheme. So far local authorities report three completed rent to mortgage sales and about 50 applications still being processed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I heard the Minister correctly—there was a little noise in the House—I believe that he referred to three completed sales and 50 applications in process for an expenditure of £414,000. We are grateful to the Minister for his reply, pointing out that the scheme is a costly flop, as we argued that it would be. Given the content of yesterday's DSS Statement which will add to the threat of repossession for those on income support, should we not be promoting a mortgage to rent scheme rather than the folly of a rent to mortgage scheme, so that families at risk of repossession can keep their homes?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness mocks. But what she really mocks is the aspiration of ordinary people to own their own home. The rent to mortgage scheme is a stepping stone to acquiring equity in their homes. Why should council tenants be denied the information of that scheme? We ran an information campaign, not a promotional campaign. It is the Government's duty to tell tenants of any new scheme which could provide them with an opportunity to become home owners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of that answer, will the Minister invite his noble friend Lord Strathclyde the Chief Whip to apologise to the House for having described it at the time the Bill was put forward as an attractive route to owner occupation when clearly it is not?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is an attractive route. The noble Lord mocks too. However, before the introduction of the rent to mortgage scheme, two pilot studies were run, one in Milton Keynes, the other in Basildon. Take-up was encouraging. There were 106 rent to mortgage sales. A number of factors have acted against the operation of the scheme; falling mortgage interest rates—everyone, I believe, will be pleased with that—and stable house prices, which have meant that many potential rent to mortgage applicants can now afford to buy on normal right to buy terms.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in answer to my colleague on the Front Bench, the Minister widened the subject a little to the sale of other council houses and said what a welcome scheme that was. It was a welcome scheme at the commencement. However, is he not now aware that tens of thousands of people are trapped in former council housing which no one wishes to buy. They are now loaded with an unrealisable asset and wish local authorities to be forced to buy them back. Is that a success of which the Minister is proud?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, when I go about the countryside—I was in Birmingham yesterday—I notice that when people have bought their houses they decorate

703
them and make them most attractive. That factor very often distinguishes the homes from some other council estates with tenants.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, when I go about the country, and about London, I speak to many thousands of people, including council house tenants, who never wished to contemplate the scheme. It was a magnificent flop. The Minister referred to an expenditure of £414,000 for three tenants to participate in the scheme. The Government sought to introduce the scheme at a time when the housing market was depressed. No one wanted to buy and no one could sell. I believe that there should be an investigation into the expenditure on the publications. The Minister referred to pilot schemes at Basildon and elsewhere. It is quite obvious that those schemes were a flop too. We knew that they would be a flop; we said that the schemes would be a flop. Why do the Government not confess that we were right and that what was a flop will continue to be a flop?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not agree with anything the noble Lord says. Any scheme which allows people to buy their own homes is worth promoting, or at least giving information about. Although the department estimated that 1.4 million tenants were eligible for the rent to mortgage scheme, individual tenants could not be identified because of the confidentiality of information about housing benefit. But if all council tenants had been sent details of the scheme, the estimated costs would have been about £1.4 million. Therefore the campaign is a very cheap way of informing council tenants.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while seeking not to mock the Minister, will he tell us whether potential buyers were informed that their mortgage payments could well rise because of a reduction in mortgage tax relief?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have no problem with people mocking me. It is mocking those who aspire to become home owners to which I object.
The noble Lord is right. Anyone taking on a mortgage should understand carefully that rates can go up and down, just as rents very often go up. The noble Lord will understand that many people are contemplating the scheme. They need to go into it carefully and to seek advice. That is why some 50 applications are still being processed.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on visiting Birmingham. We do not always have that pleasure with regard to Ministers in this Government although a noble Baroness recently visited my football team, Aston Villa. We have done badly ever since.
Had the Minister had more time on his visit to Birmingham, he would have discovered what most of us know—that a large number of people took out mortgages that they cannot now properly finance. The result is a great disparity in the amount of money
704
different owner occupiers can spend on the maintenance of their houses. It is a problem the Government should address.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, over 1.5 million tenants in Great Britain have bought their homes since the inception of the scheme in 1980. I am still convinced from the research we have done on the right to buy that home ownership is the tenure which most people prefer. Of council house tenants who bought under the right to buy, 96 per cent. were found to be pleased that they had bought. I believe that those are genuine aspirations and that they should be supported.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of a body corporate to be known as the Environment Agency and a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; to provide for the transfer of functions, property, rights and liabilities to those bodies and for the conferring of other functions on them; to make provision with respect to contaminated land and abandoned mines; to make further provision in relation to national parks; to make further provision for the control of pollution, the conservation of natural resources and the conservation or enhancement of the environment; to make provision for imposing obligations on certain persons in respect of certain products or materials; to make provision in relation to fisheries; to make provision for certain enactments to bind the Crown; to make provision with respect to the application of certain enactments in relation to the Isles of Scilly; and for connected purposes.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Delegated Powers Scrutiny: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed—
(1) to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny;
(2) to report on documents laid before Parliament under section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under section 1(4) of that Act, and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee—

705

L.Campbell of Croy,

L. Elton,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

B. Perry of Southwark,

L. Rippon of Hexham (Chairman),

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Shepherd,

L. Wigoder.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the Committee or a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee shall, if the Committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee meet at half-past eleven o'clock on Wednesday 14th December in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Misuse: Health Risks
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Government's Green Paper, Tackling Drugs Together, and of the health risks of drug abuse, particularly the spread of HIV and AIDS.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion is comprehensive and covers aspects of drug misuse which stray into the territory of other departments, including the Home Office. My noble friend Lady Blatch, the Minister at the Home Office, will therefore sum up the debate which I have great pleasure in opening.
Drug misuse matters to us all—as parents, grandparents, legislators or opinion formers. It threatens the health and wealth of the nation and damages individuals and their families. Drug misuse can lead to illness—sometimes death —a criminal record, broken relationships, loss of education and job opportunities, and loss of hope.
I know that for some parents whether or not their children are misusing drugs is one of their greatest anxieties. For those whose children are involved, the anguish is terrible. Listening to the stories of some of these parents not only engenders compassion but strengthens our determination to do everything in our power to tackle this very difficult problem.
Six weeks ago the Government published their Green Paper, Tackling Drugs Together. This set out our strategy to combat drug misuse and its consequences. The Scottish Drugs Task Force, led by my noble and
706
learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has also published its recommendations for a more effective and co-ordinated response to the Scottish problem, and similar initiatives are being considered in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Drugs pose many risks. One of our main concerns is the risk to public health and it is particularly appropriate that the House should be having this debate today, on World AIDS Day. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for suggesting that the House should discuss these important issues today and for her diligence in pursuing action on HIV, AIDS and drugs.
The Green Paper contains clear aims to galvanise national and local action. Law enforcement is important but it is only one part of the equation. It is vital to convince people, particularly young people, of the risks involved in drug misuse. The Government believe that the way to tackle drugs is by continuing vigorous law enforcement but with a renewed emphasis on education and prevention. The Green Paper therefore sets out three key objectives. They are: first, to increase the safety of communities from drug related crime; secondly, to reduce the acceptability and availability of drugs to young people; and thirdly, to reduce the health risks and other damage caused by drug misuse.
Reducing health risks must be tackled both by dissuading people from misusing drugs and by providing effective services to help those who are. For those who cannot entirely stop, services should be provided which reduce the risks not only to themselves but to others—including, of course, the risks of HIV and AIDS.
There is strong evidence that we have been successful in increasing awareness of the HIV-related risks and are also increasingly effective in encouraging those who do inject to adopt safer practices. The report, AIDS and Drug Misuse Update by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, published in September last year, includes international comparisons which show that the prevalence of HIV infection among injecting drug misusers is less than 2 per cent. in most of the UK. This compares with 15 to 20 per cent. in Germany and 30 per cent. in the Netherlands. Notable exceptions are in Edinburgh, where a quarter of drug injectors are thought to be HIV-postive—though this is half the level reported in 1986; Dundee, which is slightly higher, 25 per cent. to 30 per cent.; and London where the estimates are on average 8 per cent.
Total funding for health services for drug misusers has increased significantly in recent years from £15.5 million four years ago to over £25 million this year of which over £16 million is targeted to reduce the spread of HIV and other blood-borne infections. The aim of these services is to help people to stop taking drugs. But the Government also recognise that for some misusers complete abstinence must be a long-term goal with intermediate stages.
Though this evidence suggests that government policies have been effective, there is no room for complacency and the Government have reaffirmed in the Green Paper the importance of drug treatment services. We have also set a target in the Health of the

707
Nation to reduce the percentage of injecting drug misusers who report sharing needles in the previous four weeks.
The Green Paper commits the Government to several new initiatives which not only combat drug misuse but protect the public health. Major steps include: the launch of a national drugs helpline to be run by staff with a good knowledge of drug misuse. They will be able to refer those who need help to appropriate agencies and give advice and support to others who seek information or who are worried and anxious. The helpline will be available from April next year.
The Department of Health will also be co-ordinating a new publicity strategy. It will focus on reducing the acceptability of drugs, especially among young people. It will involve young people themselves, to put across the message to others of their own age in terms they understand and believe. We recently saw just how effective this strategy can be when the department ran a video competition for schools, focusing on drug and other substance misuse which attracted nearly 2,000 entries. We shall also use the expertise of those outside government in advertising and the media who can help us get the message across. And we will encourage partnerships with the private sector for sponsorship and commitment to tackle this miserable problem.
Lastly, the department will ensure that drug misusers have easy access to cost effective and appropriate services. This is crucial in tackling risks to public health.
This is a big financial investment and we are determined to ensure that all the resources spent deliver tangible results. Good intentions are not enough. That is why we launched a major review of the effectiveness of drug treatment services in April this year. It is being conducted by a task force, chaired by the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne, which will report to Ministers in early 1996. Its remit is to ensure that treatment services work to clear objectives, and that an assessment can be made of how effective they are.
The task force has already commissioned a "mapping" survey of current services and has invited those in the field to say what works and what does not. The task force has already received an encouraging 100 responses. A major study of treatment outcomes will also begin in early 1995. This is breaking new ground, for it will be the first time that such a comprehensive review has been undertaken.
The Green Paper makes clear that the Government will continue to encourage a range of initiatives which have a proven track record. This includes needle exchange schemes, which are particularly important in combating the spread of HIV and other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis. I saw for myself how effective such schemes can be when I visited the Angel Drug Project in Liverpool Road, which offers an impressive programme of care.
Of course not all drug misusers are in touch with services. We need to reach them, too. That is why the Government fund health authorities to develop projects which go out to make contact with people in the streets,
708
in their clubs, pubs and homes, to persuade them away from high risk activity and encourage them to seek help and advice.
There is also a need to encourage drug misusers to adopt safer sexual practices. The department will be making available the results of an exploratory study by AVERT on safer sex education for drug misusers.
Another important means of discouraging injecting drug misuse and the spread of HIV is the substitute prescribing of oral methadone. I know it is a controversial area but the Government have accepted the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that the benefits of oral methadone have been demonstrated; but with the important proviso that the prescribing of methadone alone is unlikely to reduce substantially drug use, injecting, and risky sexual behaviour.
That is why the Government have accepted the need to set up structured oral methadone maintenance programmes on a pilot basis. A number of studies will start in January, involving between 300 and 400 drug misusers, and will be funded for 12 months. A shortlist of those wishing to take part is being drawn up and announcements on the successful schemes will be made before Christmas. The studies will be independently evaluated and the results will be fed into the work of the task force.
So we are tackling drug misuse on many fronts, recognising that it is a large and growing problem. We are faced with an increase in experimentation by young people, an increase in new addicts, more misuse and, sadly, deaths. All this means a real increase in human misery. The Green Paper is a unique opportunity to meet the challenge and tackle this threat.
The Government are particularly concerned by the number of young people who misuse drugs—as is every parent in the country. A recent British crime survey suggests that nearly a third of young people between the ages of 16 and 29 have taken an illegal drug. And, worryingly, 14 per cent. of school children aged 14 and 15 admit to taking an illegal drug. Young people need to be better informed about the risks of drug misuse so that they can resist pressure, whether from their own friends, brothers or sisters or anyone else.
Education must be one of the keys to success. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has launched several new initiatives which will play a major part in the Government's drugs strategy. These include: new support for training teachers in drug education, and the funding of innovative projects around the country to test different approaches; publication on 8th November of a draft circular for consultation. This contains guidance for schools on the dangers of substance misuse, including solvent, alcohol and tobacco. It also contains advice on the development of school policies on drugs education, and on how to deal with drug-related incidents on school premises; the development of guidance on different ways of teaching about drugs within the national curriculum; the production of a digest of teaching materials to help schools to select those which best suit their needs; and the Department for Education is also organising a series of regional conferences in the New

709
Year chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. They will raise awareness of drug issues, stimulate debate at local level, and promote activity.
The Green Paper is called Tackling Drugs Together because we recognise that a co-ordinated approach is vital at both national and local level. At national level the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and H.M. Customs and Excise all have key roles to play. But the problems cannot be tackled by central government alone. At the local level teachers, the police, health professionals, parents and carers, social services, the probation service, the prison service, voluntary agencies and many others need to work together to maximise our efforts in dealing with this tragic problem that still claims too many victims through experimentation, dependency and crime.
It is possible for local people, working together, to make a real impact on local problems. For example, the East Sussex Drugs Advisory Council has, with the support of the drugs prevention initiative, responded to the worrying problem of drug use in the rural areas of the county.
First, it undertook research which showed that drug use was common to many young people, whether they lived in rural or urban communities. Information and advice for these young people were clearly needed as a matter of urgency; but the population was scattered over a wide area. How could a confidential accessible service be provided? How could young people be attracted, without ringing alarm bells in the whole community?
The solution was a youth outreach minibus. The scheme was piloted in Woodingdean. Young people themselves were involved in the management committee. In its first 10 months, the bus operated for three nights a week, for 2½ hours at a time, and 309 people made contact. Those people went on to contact the bus on a further 539 occasions. Most of the contacts were boys aged 13 to 16 and girls aged 14 to 16; but 78 adults also sought advice. The most requested subject for information was drugs. There were 1,179 inquiries about different drugs on 504 occasions. The youth advice and information bus continues to visit sites in Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Rottingdean and Saltdean, and is into its third year of operation.
The Government need to build on good work like this and we welcome the advice and comments of those already working in the field. Our consultation period runs until 20th January and the results will inform the White Paper to be published in the spring.
To underpin and strengthen local efforts the Government have proposed setting up over 100 Drug Action Teams. The teams will be set up by chief executives of district health authorities and will be 'composed of key people who can make things happen locally. They will be advised by reference groups drawing on a wider range of local interests.
District health authorities will be asked to report to central government on the setting up of teams by 30th September next year. The chair of each team—selected by the team members—will report to the Lord President of the Council, my right honourable friend Tony
710
Newton, who chairs the ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet on drug misuse. The Government intend to make available £8.5 million to provide support for these teams over the three years of the strategy.
Members of voluntary organisations will be influential in the part they play on the reference groups and they will draw on the work they do in providing expert advice, treatment and rehabilitation to drug misusers. Probably the largest and best known charity in the field is Turning Point, which has nearly 50 projects delivering a range of services to over 14,000 people a year. The voluntary sector makes a remarkable contribution not only to tackling drug misuse but also to combating HIV and to caring for those infected. Organisations like ACET and Barnardos, for example, are reaching young people in schools, and are very impressive in the work that they do.
I have concentrated on the need to reduce the acceptability of drugs, especially to young people and on the health risks associated with misuse. But the Green Paper also underlines the need to reduce the availability of drugs and to improve the safety of communities from drug related crime. These are issues for which the Home Office has prime responsibility and my noble friend Lady Blatch, in closing the debate, will expand on initiatives being undertaken in these areas.
In conclusion, I cannot pretend that there are easy or quick answers to this problem. But I am confident that our new strategy is an important step forward. The Government are determined to ensure that the resources we are investing are used effectively, measured against clear outcomes, and monitored. The strategy provides a clear framework for this.
In taking all these tasks forward at national level we will never forget that we are not just talking about statistics but about individuals, their families and the communities in which they live and work. Lives have been blighted, indeed even ended, by the misery and waste that drug misuse can cause. We owe it to them to make tackling drugs together a reality. I look forward to your Lordships' debate and to my noble friend's concluding remarks. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Government's Green Paper, Tackling Drugs Together, and of the health risks of drug abuse, particularly the spread of HIV and AIDS.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she confirm that her speech and her references to methadone did not hint at an intention by the Government to restrict the prescription and controlled use of methadone as a heroin substitute?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are trying to take it forward in these pilot areas so that we have firm evidence as to the impact that methadone can have in combating this problem.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this debate on the Green Paper Tackling Drugs Together and, very

711
importantly, for giving us the opportunity to discuss HIV and AIDS on World AIDS Day. December 1st has now become a traditional moment to reflect on the global pandemic and to look at the situation in Britain and our own strategies for prevention and care.
The World Health Organisation has today reminded us that in the past year more people have been infected with the HIV virus and more people have died than in any previous year. There are now 6,000 new infections every day. The World Health Organisation predicts that 40 million people will be HIV-positive by the end of the decade. Already 1 million children are infected, and by the year 2000 there will be 10 million so-called AIDS orphans.
Today, in Paris, there is a world summit of government Ministers—I understand that the British Government are represented by the right honourable Mrs. Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Health—which will sign a series of agreements to improve international co-operation on AIDS. One of those agreements is to make clean needles universally available to injecting drugs misusers. I suspect that, like all attempts at prevention, it is likely to be more vigorously pursued in the industrial world than in the poorer countries, where all resources, including for that kind of programme, are very scarce. On the agenda in Paris is an attempt to redress the balance of the resources for AIDS prevention, so that more money and more skills can be deployed in the countries of Africa, Asia and South America, where whole populations are now threatened.
On World AIDS Day we may indeed justifiably congratulate ourselves in Britain on our success in keeping levels of infection fairly low. Just over 22,000 HIV-positives are officially reported in this country compared with 10 million in sub-Saharan Africa. But, particularly today, we cannot ignore the global crisis and our responsibility to try to help. AIDS and the Family is today's international theme; the family of man is certainly facing a terrifying health threat, the scale of which is unique in modern history.
In this country the prevention strategies adopted in the mid-1980s have been relatively effective. Today, for example, there are more AIDS cases in Paris than in the whole of Britain. But, although the number of people infected in the past year through sexual intercourse has risen and the percentage of those infected heterosexually has now reached a substantial 28 per cent., and although drugs use is increasing, the number of infected drugs users seems to have stabilised. The continuing message about that, as the Minister has already emphasised, is that, although the overall picture is somewhat 'encouraging, we must continue to say, "No complacency". A successful prevention programme is not like a successful vaccine: one shot and it is all over. Health education and other measures must be constantly repeated, constantly reviewed and constantly renewed. It is in that context that Tackling Drugs Together has been generally, if not particularly enthusiastically, welcomed.
712
Many of those working in the drugs field are pleased that the document recognises the value of a co-ordinated strategy and acknowledges the growing pressure on local communities by establishing drug action teams in every district health authority in England. The Minister outlined an extensive programme; but, as so often in health and social services, there is grave concern among those working in the field about the potential gap between a paper policy and practical reality. In other words, where are the resources to make it all work?
Yesterday we had a very interesting and rather disturbing debate, in which many noble Lords who are present today took part, about the funding crisis which already exists in community care. It seems that many of the proposals in the Green Paper on drugs will again fall on the overburdened local authorities. We know that ring-fenced money for HIV and AIDS is to be phased out. It is difficult to see from where the new money for new services and new programmes will come. Although the Minister's speech paid tribute to the voluntary sector, in this context it is unfortunate that the Green Paper pays scant attention to the role of the voluntary sector and volunteer action. Small community groups and national groups, such as the already mentioned Turning Point, have played a leading role in the fight against AIDS. They have the credibility and often the kind of information and support that is more acceptable to drugs misusers than is the statutory sector. It is vital that they are equal partners in any drugs strategy and any AIDS strategy and that they are properly resourced to do their own work.
There are also concerns about the proposals for general health promotion campaigns and education in schools. As your Lordships know, the Health Education Authority, which has done extraordinarily useful work in this area, remains under a very peculiar political cloud. Its future still seems very uncertain. It would be interesting to know whether the Department of Health, or even perhaps the Department for Education, now intends directly to manage some of those programmes. I am pleased that the Department for Education will offer new resources to schools through the GEST schools programme. But those programmes will have to be very sensitively introduced, particularly to those teachers who feel somewhat scarred and burned by all the furore in the past few years about sex education and the removal of HIV and AIDS from the national science curriculum.
Many teachers are now extremely wary of the whole area of personal and social education. The climate, which a few years ago produced helpful, open discussion in schools and clear direct information for pupils, has changed. It has changed because the policy messages from Ministers have frankly been inhibiting and regressive. Perhaps the climate has now changed again and perhaps the Green Paper signals another change. But any new initiatives which try to introduce new programmes on drugs and health will need very careful nurturing to be successfully launched.
I welcome this opportunity for a World AIDS Day debate. But frankly I am a little surprised that the Government have linked the introduction of the Green Paper to the issues of HIV and AIDS. I understand from

713
the Minister's remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, whose work in this field we all know and respect, may have been influential in this matter. But it seems to me that the Green Paper's dominant theme is much more concerned about law and order than about public health. That is perhaps not surprising when the Government spend twice as much on control and enforcement as they do on prevention and treatment.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu will focus later in the debate on some of the specific enforcement issues. I would simply suggest that the overall law and order tone of parts of the Green Paper seems to distort some of the health objectives and may even work against some of the successful work on drugs that the Department of Health itself previously supported and promoted. Time and again, despite what the Minister said, the Green Paper underlines the ambition of total abstinence for drugs misusers. Nowhere in the Green Paper is harm reduction explored as a suitable goal. Yet, all the evidence suggests that it has been the effective programme of harm reduction, through needle exchanges, substitute prescribing and education on safer drug use and safer sex, that has produced the stable HIV infection rate of which we are now rightly proud. As we know, harm reduction methods are complicated and expensive, but they have been successful.
If now the loudest theme from central government is the notorious American "Just say no", local health and social services authorities, battling with severe financial problems already, may well be less enthusiastic about delivering balanced interventions that can help serious drug misusers achieve stability. As the Minister said, two years ago the Health of the Nation, as part of the general HIV and AIDS policy, set the very ambitious target of reducing injecting drug use by 50 per cent. by 1997 and a further 50 per cent. by the year 2000; in other words, wiping it out altogether by the end of the decade.
The Health of the Nation handbook on action for HIV and AIDS in sexual health set out in a very detailed and constructive way programmes for at least trying to achieve that very ambitious target. Most of the proposals included there were rooted in harm reduction and education. The action points contain every type of proposal, ranging from the national to the very local, and are based on the idea that it is not very difficult to achieve total abstinence for most drugs misusers. The same messages run through the latest report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) working party on AIDS and drugs misuse.
The working party again pays tribute to the success of comprehensive harm reduction and suggests extensions, including, significantly, a great deal more outreach work. The Minister has already mentioned the oral methodone programme. Despite the intervention from her own Benches, I hope that the Government will not shy away from extending the programme of a structured strategy, about which the AIDS and Drugs Misuse Update says:
"The benefits both in terms of individual and public health have now been clearly demonstrated"
714
Both those documents—the AIDS and Drugs Misuse Update and The Health of the Nation handbook—seem to reaffirm the basic tenets of the drugs and AIDS programme in this country far more strongly than the new Green Paper does.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. I believe she misunderstood the purport and tenor of my question. I was anxious to ensure that no restriction was placed on the use and prescription of methadone in the health service as a heroin substitute. It can be a useful aid both in the prevention of heroin addiction and of crimes arising from heroin addiction.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. Indeed I did misunderstand him. In an effective way he was perhaps using a double negative, which I misunderstood. I repeat that I entirely agree with the ACMD report that the benefits have now been clearly demonstrated. I am glad that he too supports that view. I apologise to him for that misunderstanding.
The Green Paper does not reaffirm in quite the same strong way, as do the documents to which I have just referred and the previous document on the health of the nation, the basic tenets of the AIDS and drugs programme which have been so successful. I hope that by presenting the Green Paper the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—who was very much in the forefront of these programmes—is not lending the Department of Health's authority to an approach which seems to be based far more on control and punishment than on public health.
AIDS prevention and treatment in this country has always been based on open access and non-discrimination. That has been particularly valued by drugs misusers who often felt stigmatised and ostracised by care services. On World AIDS Day it is important that we remember the significance of human rights in the AIDS battle. I shall conclude by quoting Dr. Jonathan Mann, who is the founding director of the WHO global programme on AIDS. In a recent speech he said:
"We must recognise that across the world it is discrimination, denial and the abuse of human rights which is the major risk factor. We must adopt strategies that recognise this, otherwise we will lose the coherence and credibility of the global fight against AIDS".
I very much hope that that philosophy will be in the White Paper which, in the spring, takes forward Tackling Drugs Together.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Green Paper contains one theme which must be recognised immediately. It takes on the idea of horizontal integration of responsibility for a wide social problem in a practical way. It is signed by five senior members of government, including three Secretaries of State. The document deals at all levels with horizontal integration of authority for the problem. It is probably the one theme that runs through the document upon which we can congratulate the Government. It does not try to pigeon-hole treatment of the problem to one specific area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, it places

715
most emphasis on criminal activity, at least in the first part. At page 10 of the document, paragraph 1.6, under the heading "Crime", the Government's main objectives are,
"to see that the law is effectively enforced, especially against those involved in the supply and trafficking of illegal drugs; to reduce the incidence of drug-related crime; to reduce the public's fear of drug-related crime; and to reduce the level of drug misuse in prisons".
Laudable as those aims are, I am afraid that we can do little more than put a brake on the flow of drugs and the activity of those who are using them in our society. We are not a police state and I hope that we shall not become one. We have open borders and these substances will make their way into our country. Indeed, many of the synthetic drugs are produced here and we export them. There is a real problem in this country. We cannot stop the drugs becoming available. It is therefore commendable that the Government talk of education. However, when they do so they are faced with the problem that they will not be believed. They put forward a clever and simple message about drugs misuse; but even so people will rebel, especially the young. The young will always rebel against advice, no matter how sensible it is.
The dabbling in, and experimentation with, drugs and substances has always gone on. Indeed, one need only look at the use of alcohol in our society and the amount of under-age drinking that takes place to realise that there is always a mystique about these things. The fact that what we are discussing are new substances will not stop them becoming available. The Government therefore find themselves in the position of having to control the input of drugs and dealing in the strongest possible way with those who supply them while in fact not being in a position to control the situation.
We talk of control and the effective use of drugs in prisons. In our society it is only in a prison environment that there is containment and the legal authority to control the amount of drugs being used. But even inside prisons we have failed. It may be possible to tighten up the situation but I doubt whether, in any circumstances, we shall ever be able to stop the misuse of drugs in prison.
Bearing that in mind, will we ever be able to stop the misuse of drugs in our society? The answer is no. When discussing the problem we must bear in mind also that if we can make drug misuse less socially acceptable to the general public, the problem will grow more slowly. Drugs tend to appear in fashion waves, as does everything else. Thus we may drive back certain types of drugs and banned substances. Indeed, we have seen one such success in our society; that is, the cutting back of tobacco. That was not achieved by making it a 'prescribed drug but through social pressure, and we have actually cut down its use.
It may be possible to create the same effect with illegal drugs and substances. But they may be replaced in other ways. Education can only be a long-term process. A reinforced message will still be ignored at times by certain people. But through education we can integrate further the fight against crime relating to drugs
716
misuse. We may once again put a series of brakes on the process but we shall never be able to stop the integration of drugs into our society.
The Government should perhaps have placed more emphasis on rehabilitation—as we do with criminals—of those who have started experimenting with banned substances. If we can convert people from continuing a habit, we shall cut down the market for the drugs which will ultimately reduce the supply.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, who, unfortunately, is not in his place, said that if we can provide a legal and controlled substitute for certain categories of drug, we shall stop part of the upward spiral of misuse and availability of drugs. In the Green Paper the Government mention on numerous occasions those types of activity. But if they want to make an effective inroad into the problem they will have to put far more emphasis on that area.
The linkage between the spread of the HIV virus and drugs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, is primarily the sharing of needles. Basically we are talking about the transference of infected body fluids. Thus when we talk about the spread of this killer virus, we must also talk about our attitudes towards sex education and relate the two. Over the past couple of years we have had a series of stormy debates in this Chamber on the subject. If I stand back from any party political stance, I believe that we saw a series of over-reactions to political correctness in certain handbooks and to specific interest groups, and we heard many justifiable moral stances. In the end we backed down from a sensible position which was being abused by a few. I hope that the Government will be encouraged to re-establish their position of providing as much knowledge as is necessary and as much knowledge as a child can take on board and that they will do so without providing the moral judgments that go with it. Indeed, I was forced to admit that certain articles which I read out in the Chamber were not for the consumption of people below the age of 12.
A storm was also raised about articles designed for teachers giving them answers to questions that were to be asked. In a recent case questions about certain sexual practices were put by a child to a nurse giving information on this subject and the teachers supported the nurse who answered the questions correctly. She said that certain sexual practices can lead to the transfer of the virus. If we can re-establish that publicly as the Government's position we will be helping everyone because we will know what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do in the classroom. If that is taken on board we will be able to transfer information. In addition, as anyone who has ever tried to get across any message knows, one can reinforce types of information by linking them to other types of information—the horizontal integration of knowledge. We shall be able to reinforce both types of message.
When dealing with a subject of this complexity the Government are very much to be congratulated on having done something here which we have criticised them very often for not doing in the past. They have given a series of initiatives which will be assessed over a period of time. The new local health authority-led action

717
groups will be able to provide incentives. They will also be able to respond to vocal problems. I have not mentioned the fact that certain urban environments have led to pockets of very high drug misuse. Badly designed council estates provide lots of dark corners with lots of easy access and a good environment for crime generally and drug-related crime in particular. Once crime is flourishing, prostitution will also flourish, which can lead to the transfer of the HIV virus.
There are many good things in this document. There are no big ideas, probably because they have all been tried and many of them have failed, but the Government are at least initially taking on board the fact that there is a multiplicity of problems connected with this one area. I hope that the document will lead to a growth in more consultative and positive work in this area.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I must start by apologising to the House for behaviour which I dislike in principle. I am booked on a plane to Barcelona this evening for a pre-arranged meeting with members of the regional government of Catalonia to discuss their AIDS strategy and a conference that we are holding there next year with their support. Therefore, I am afraid that I shall not be able to stay for the end of the debate. I realise that this will probably forfeit a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to specific points that I shall raise, but I hope they will be given some consideration as part of the consultation process.
It is clear from the lucid speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and from the document itself that the Government have devised a comprehensive interdepartmental strategy on which they are to be congratulated. I am glad, on behalf of my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS, that the Motion refers specifically to the spread of HIV and AIDS. Clearly, there is a much bigger AIDS debate than is contained in the Motion and a much bigger drugs debate than is contained in AIDS alone. All the same, it is doubly appropriate that HIV infection and the AIDS syndrome should receive some prominence today, it being World AIDS Day, the seventh in line since it was initiated in 1988. It is also today, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, that the AIDS summit hosted by the French Government is being held in Paris, where our own Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, is representing this country right now.
Again following the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I want very briefly to pursue the World AIDS Day theme before turning to the substance of the Motion. The British Government have an excellent record on AIDS control, treatment and prevention, but there is always the danger of this flaking at the edges, particularly as. regards government relations with and use of the skills of the voluntary sector. I shall return to that point. The Government should not listen to siren voices, within their own party or without, that it was all a fuss about nothing, or is all over bar the shouting. The fact that we have just crossed the threshold of 10,000 AIDS cases, about two-thirds of whom have died—many in the most distressing circumstances—should give us pause for thought in two directions. First, the fact that the death
718
roll is much less than the upper bracket of early predictions is a matter for congratulation rather than for carping or scaremongering, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, also said. Epidemiology proceeds through a series of refinements based on methodological improvements and lengthening experience. British predictions are now among the most accurate in the world with great benefit to public policy and planning. The relatively low prevalence rates compared with those of most other member states of the European Union are a tribute to prompt and effective government and voluntary sector action, working hand in hand —an advantage that should on no account be lightly surrendered.
The second thought triggered by our 10,000 cumulative AIDS cases is one of immense sadness that a condition which affects mainly the young and those in prime of life should have reached the proportions that it has. In this country public health and private prudence have built a formidable alliance against it. Yet, the results are still devastating for all those infected or affected by it. That is why we have World AIDS Day. The red ribbon that I am wearing is not some kind of trendy, leftish logo, or I would not be wearing it; nor, I suspect, would some other Members of your Lordships' House who are wearing it today. It is a symbol of solidarity with many people across the world who are faced not only with a devastating disease but one that too often falls on the wrong side of socially acceptable diseases. With this we should have no truck.
Now to the Motion. The consultation document, as I suggested earlier, is rather impressive in its cross-departmental scope, but that inevitably makes it somewhat hybrid. Where departmental interests conflict, how will these be sorted out? Chapter 3, paragraph 3.58 recapitulates the target in the health strategy document The Health of the Nation to reduce the percentage of injecting drug misusers who share needles from 20 per cent. in 1990 to 10 per cent. by 1997 and 5 per cent. by the year 2000. These are very concrete aspirations. How are they to be achieved? Abstinence is adopted on page 12 as the "ultimate aim", but it is recognised rightly that exhortation is not enough and that the Department of Health should ensure that drug misusers have,
"easy access to cost-effective and appropriate services".
In effect, what is sometimes called "harm reduction", as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, or what we might equally dub "damage limitation", have to be brought into play as part of a dual strategy. In paragraph 7.3 it is stated that the success in limiting the number of infections among drug misusers must be sustained and paragraph 7.14 commits the Department of Health to encourage,
"a range of initiatives which minimise the risks and damage of drug misuse … to individuals who are not drug free, eg syringe and needle exchange schemes and advice on safer sex".
I am happy with most of the above, perhaps a little happier than the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I am concerned with public health and it looks to me as though these passages were written by the Department of Health. But I ask myself how its aims are to be achieved. Paragraph 3.59 speaks of more than 300 needle and syringe exchange schemes which have been

719
set up since the mid-1980s via pharmacies and other agencies, and on the next page I look at the graph that tells me that HIV infection through equipment sharing has come down from a high peak in the mid-1980s to a much lower plateau today.
I draw the conclusion that the exchange schemes have been a great success and I believe that that was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. But when I turn to the passages on policing in Chapter 5, I find no mention of them. I read that the chief constables are asked to consider,
"establishing formal drugs strategies for their forces"
and to report their findings to the Home Secretary by the end of June 1995. There is an aim to establish a "national strategy". We are presumably a long way short of a national police force to which I would be totally opposed. But I do ask myself whether the new strategy will leave enough flexibility for force-by-force tactical decisions on the handling of the drug scene. The epicentres of drug misuse are bound to be different from the rest of the country. Needle exchange schemes such as that on Merseyside, which has been a great success—and there have been others—must depend to some extent on sensitive policing. I would like to be assured that they will not be affected adversely by the new strategy.
None of this is nit-picking. It goes back to our record of achievement and whether we can afford to relax our guard. I would suggest not. Across the European Union some 40 per cent. of AIDS cases are caused by intravenous drug misuse. In Spain generally and Madrid in particular, that figure is in the region of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of a higher per capita total than we have here. In our country the equivalent figure appears to have flattened out at about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. But the word is "plateau" and the only right direction is further downward still.
I shall not say very much about prisons because others will speak with much more authority than I can in this area. I do however have some concern about how compulsory drug testing through urine will sit with the recent conversion of the old prison medical service into a Directorate of Health Care with a mission to provide better health care to prisoners. If a lot of addictions are discovered by this method, how will they be treated? Also it is hard to see how this policy would be compatible with the distribution of bleach, which was the response—correct in my view—of the governor of Glenochil Prison in Scotland following the discovery last year that at least eight and up to 13 prisoners were HIV-positive through needle sharing while in prison.
Another section of the document that drew my 'attention is Chapter 10, particularly the paragraphs on purchasing criteria and a voice for service providers. Now, I am not one of those who are bitterly opposed to the so-called "contract culture". I can see virtues in clear contracts to perform services, so I was glad to read the objective in paragraph 10.8 to,
"improve contracting arrangements (for both purchasers and providers)"
720
because there is a very real problem here. It is essential that public purchasing authorities agree and stick to viable schedules of payment when entering into contracts with voluntary sector or other providers, but particularly with voluntary bodies which often experience severe cashflow difficulties. I was therefore encouraged by Mr. Tom Sackville's Written Answer on 24th November to a Question in another place that,
"The National Health Service Executive issued a requirement to health authorities on 28 October 1994 to comply with the Confederation of British Industry prompt payment code".
I hope that this will become standard good practice throughout the public sector, including local authorities, otherwise the contract culture will indeed fall into disrepute and become inoperable.
My final point is of a more general nature. On reading the document I was struck, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, by the rather minimal role allocated to the voluntary sector. The proposed drug action teams to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred, in paragraph 8.9 on page 59, have no voluntary sector representative at all, as noted critically by Turning Point, the largest UK charity in the field, in its response to the Green Paper. Even for the rather larger and presumably merely advisory drug reference group whose suggested composition appears on page 64, only one or possibly two voluntary representatives are proposed out of a total of about 20, despite the noble Baroness's endorsement of their importance. There is mention of SCODA in paragraphs 10.10 to 10.12 as the umbrella body for service providers, but the impression given is that it will become increasingly an arm of government.
Obviously, this is a government-led initiative and rightly so, but no tools or weapons should be neglected wherever they are to be found. For instance, voluntary bodies working in the HIV-AIDS field have performed, and are performing, work of incalculable value. By analogy it makes sense to make the maximum use, across the whole field of drug abuse and prisons, of voluntary sector agencies which can operate so effectively in the interstices of public policy.
The word "together" appears in the largest print on the cover of this document, referring presumably to the five sponsoring government departments. I believe that the Government would be wise to extend its scope more widely to build in more positively and actively national voluntary bodies with all their accumulated expertise and commitment in the field and local community-based organisations. That could be done for a tiny proportion of the £526 million spent on drugs by the Government last year. Only then will the word "together" achieve its full potential.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate this Green Paper and indeed I welcome the Green Paper itself. It is—and I believe other noble Lords have already made the point —quite a remarkable document in many ways. Apart from the fact that it is 114-pages long, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, it has been signed by three Secretaries of State and the Paymaster General. Heading the list is the Lord President of the Council and it has

721
an introduction by no less a figure than the Prime Minister. I have looked at the document quite carefully. It is arguably the most extensive policy document which has ever been produced by a European government on the subject of drugs, and congratulations are therefore due both to the Prime Minister and the Government for having taken the trouble to produce it.
Reading my right honourable friend's introduction and the whole foreword to the document, I can only conclude that the concern which various Members of your Lordships' House and others have voiced about the drug problem in Britain over the past few years has finally registered with Government. I see this document as a statement by them that they have finally realised the extent and the serious nature of Britain's drug problems and that they are going now to do their level best firmly to grip this problem. It may not have escaped the attention of some of your Lordships that I have on occasions been slightly critical of the Government's policy in the past. I shall return to the offensive quite soon. But before I do so it is important to register very loudly and clearly that this is a tremendous step forward for any government to take. I believe that it is the first time that any European government, as I have said, has attempted to do that.
On the plus side, this Green Paper contains a really thorough and deep review of the present state of affairs relating to the drug problems in this country and what steps the Government at all levels have taken until now. It quite rightly acknowledges that there are many gaps in the information which we need in order to make the kinds of decisions that we would like to make, and that there are gaps in the services which exist at present. The document quite rightly outlines proposals to deal with them. It has also to be said that a great many of the 114 pages are taken up with telling us things that we already know. The foreword states,
"We need a co-ordinated and clearly focused domestic strategy".
The document goes on to say:
"We recognise that the strategy is only as good as its delivery".
That is all well and good and I believe that we all agree with that. It could of course apply to practically every government policy and every government department. Of course there are matters with which we shall agree and there will be others with which we shall not agree. It is probably not very helpful to go through all 114 pages picking out the parts which are good and the parts which are bad. It is important to try to look at the paper from a wide point of view and to see what is the overall strategy; what is the direction we are going to take and whether that is a good direction in which to be going. It is clearly on that that we are being invited to comment.
Roughly speaking, there are really only two ways in which one can deal with the drug problem. One can seek either to control the supply of drugs, using Customs, the police, courts and prison—that is to say, the criminal justice system—or one can seek to control the demand. There are two ways of doing the latter. The first is through education and prevention, and the other is through treatment of the existing addict population.
Historically in Britain the emphasis has been on trying to control supply via the criminal justice system, but over the past few years—this is no criticism of that
722
system—it has become increasingly clear that that system does not really work. Although in the Green Paper the Government reiterate their commitment to trying to control the supply of drugs through the criminal justice system, it seems to me that the emphasis is switching. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, does not agree, but I have more information on this than the noble Baroness. There does not appear to be quite so much to say about the criminal justice system as there used to be. It seems that the Government realise that however important it is, it is not going to be the answer, so the emphasis has switched to the other side of the coin—that is, to reducing demand, which means education and prevention on the one hand, and treatment on the other.
Looking at the Green Paper, it seems that the Government have opted for the route of education as the means of prevention. The immediate question is: why that route and not the other? I think that it is for a very simple reason. I refer to the lovely old English proverb, "Prevention is better than cure". I have two reasons for thinking that that might be the philosophy behind the policy. The first is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health said that to me rather forcefully at a meeting some time ago. My second reason is that that phrase occurs in the Scottish version of the Green Paper although I could not find it in the English version. It is a marvellous idea. It is much better not to go out and get wet than it is to sit in bed with a streaming cold. It is better not to break your leg than to put a plaster cast on it. Clearly, prevention is better than cure—but only if it works; only if we can identify some factor or something that we can say or do that will actually persuade people not to start using drugs.
The present aims, as outlined in the Green Paper, and the policy that we are following as we speak at the moment, comprise three aspects. The first is education and the youth service, and that includes the work in the national curriculum. The second aspect is the Home Office drug prevention initiative, and the third element comprises the national information and advertising campaigns, including European Drug Prevention Week.
The aims that are set out in the Green Paper are to discourage young people from taking drugs and to develop effective education strategies focusing particularly on young people. I am not absolutely certain of the difference between the two. They seem to be exactly the same. Pages 47 and 48 contain a further list of five or six things saying basically the same thing, "We're going to try to educate kids. We're going to try to help teachers to educate kids. We're going to get into schools. We're going to do youth projects". All are saying the same: that the Government will develop effective education strategies focusing particularly on young people.
In other words, the existing strategy for education and the proposed strategy for education are very much the same thing. That does not matter very much because it is fine if it works. Furthermore, performance indicators will be built into the new strategy. That is a first and we should welcome it. The big question is: can it work? My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has talked about our track record, so I ask again: can the policy work? Well,

723
we have had the policies that are outlined in the Green Paper to a much lesser extent for four, five or 10 years—certainly, for as long as I can remember—and during that time drug use among young people has increased. This is a difficult issue.
As I think that this is an important subject, I have spent the past year looking, in my amateur way, at studies of drug education in schools. I have not found a single example of a study anywhere in the world to demonstrate that if you put a programme of this nature into schools, you will actually lower drug use. One or two studies show the type of things that might happen and that some advantage might occur over a short period of time, but there is no really good peg on which to hang one's hat. I found two studies from the United States in the last two years which demonstrate clearly that if drug education policies are introduced into some schools, the incidence of drug taking is actually raised. That is really bad news, but it is not a fact that we can ignore.
The people who have been in the game longest are the Australians. They have been practising pretty thorough and complete drug education in their schools for just over 20 years. Last year two Australian states changed their policy. They are no longer going to try to teach kids not to use drugs; they are going to try to teach them how to use drugs safely because they have had to admit that the former policy simply does not work. Drug use is not only continuing to rise; it is rising at an increasing and accelerating rate.
The assumption behind drug education is that by educating children about the dangers of drugs, they will be able to make informed and responsible decisions about drug use, but will they and do they? That assumption behind drug education—we have talked about it in lots of different ways and have heard many different people talk about it in lots of different ways—is based on the idea that, currently, part of the problem is ignorance and that as soon as young people are educated and gain some knowledge, they will make better decisions. However, the Green Paper openly states that one of the problems facing teachers is that, on the whole, the kids know more about this than the teachers. So, if ignorance is not the problem, why would education be the answer?
Let us look at it from another angle for a moment. We all know the object of French lessons. It is to learn to speak and write French at a reasonable level. Like, I expect, most of your Lordships, I sat through about four French lessons a week for about 10 years and I have to tell your Lordships, with deep shame and regret, that I write and speak French appallingly. That was what happened when I was taught something positive, but with drug education we are trying to teach young people something in the hope that they will not do it. There is a lack of logic in that. I know that it was a silly example, but I think that the point is relatively clear.
There is another major difference. While my school was desperately trying to teach me French, my parents, family and wider friends were not desperately saying to me, "Don't speak French". But in the case of drug education, while the teacher may be telling the kids for one, two or three hours a week, "Let's not do this", the
724
wider community outside—their family, friends and the communities in which they are growing up—are insidiously and generally saying to them, "Do this. It is good. It's okay and it works". Who will win that battle? The reality is that it will be the wider community. It will be the insidious world in which we live, which is trying to persuade kids to take drugs, that will win.
There is a logistics problem also. The Department for Education in its statement and in the speech which my right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard made in launching the policy has announced that it will fund 10 innovative projects in the field of drug education. I do not know what your Lordships think, but I tend to believe that people who ask to be told about "10 innovative projects" only do so because they do not have any projects that work. They are looking for ideas. That is fine. If you do not have an idea, you look for one. So, we find 10 innovative projects, fund them, implement them and monitor them to see how they work, but how much time will pass? Another 10 or even 15 years will pass before we have the type of results that we need on which to base our judgments. During that time, drug use will rise. During the past 10 or 20 years, it has risen by about 1,000 per cent. So, while we are desperately looking for educational answers, on the other side of the coin the street will be beating us to it. I suspect that that is not an easy way of going about things.
We are already doing more work in the areas of education and prevention than ever before. The Home Office drug prevention initiative is now in its fourth year. As the Prime Minister said in his foreword, since 1990 it has started 1,000 projects, yet in those four years drug use has doubled. Does that show that those projects are successful? Well, it might be early days yet, but I do not think that it shows that they are successful because we must ask whether the object of the Home Office drug prevention initiative is to start projects or to lower drug use. It appears to be very good at starting projects, but it does not seem to lower drug use.
I ask myself, therefore, whether we are sensible to set as the cornerstone of the new policy a strategy that cannot demonstrate any tangible evidence of success. Are we really to place so much reliance on a strategy that at the end of the day may not work? That is not to say that we should not try such an approach. Of course we should try it. We should try everything, any innovative ideas. We should try them and fund them, but we cannot rely on them if we do not think they are going to work.
There is one thing we can look at that we have so far missed out. It does work. It is something that is not much mentioned in the Green Paper, although that is not entirely the fault of the Green Paper. I refer to treatment of the existing addict population. It is a difficult matter for the Government in relation to the Green Paper and I do not criticise them for their lack of attention to it when, as your Lordships know, they have taken some steps forward. They have certainly listened to what some of the people involved have been saying for the past few years. We have in place at the moment an effectiveness review. We have the Department of Health task force, which is investigating what forms of drug

725
treatment actually work, how much they cost and where they fit in with other measures. This will be a thorough review of the effectiveness of what we have at the moment. It would be silly to propose changes until we have the results.
Another point made forcibly to the Government over the last few years concerns the "bridge" between the voluntary and independent sectors; that is, the major area of drug treatment in Britain. The bridge organisation, the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, was not working effectively. We felt that it was not as it should have been. The Government recognised that, and I congratulate my honourable friend Mr. Bowis on the work he has done. The standing conference has been completely reformed. There has been long and careful study by management consultants. A new executive director has been appointed and a new constitution formed. So it is going to be made to work. We see from the Green Paper that its probable role, which cannot be decided yet, is being outlined. These are major advancements; we must congratulate the Government on them.
Harking back to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and by my noble friend in intervening, we heard about the two sides of methadone and abstinence. There are conflicts here. But these are not conflicts which need to be resolved on the Floor of your Lordships' House. These are clinical issues which should be resolved by their effectiveness. I suspect they will not be resolved to everyone's content. There has been much too much reliance clinically in this country upon maintenance programmes. We need to look at that aspect very carefully; indeed, we are doing so at the moment. The other side of the coin is that there is and always will be a very important role for methadone maintenance. We have not got the balance right but the way the Department of Health task force is looking at it and the results that follow will help us to correct the balance. So it is no small thing that the Government have done. I am confident that the results will be very beneficial.
I would have liked the Government to say in the Green Paper that, based on what the task force says, they will make a commitment to bolster treatment and fulfil the recommendations made by a combination of more resources and more effort. I hope that my noble friend, who is to reply, will confirm that it is the Government's intention to act on the report as best they can. It is, I recognise, difficult for the Government to go into details until the report appears.
Although there are many aspects of the problem that cannot be proved because we do not have all the evidence we would like, it is clear that the right sort of treatment applied in the right way at the right time works. The patient who is undergoing the treatment, the families and everyone involved derive substantial benefits. If something works, let us concentrate on that.
A fascinating study, the California drug and alcohol treatment assessment of 1992, is probably the most comprehensive report ever made on treatment in the western world: it must be of interest to anyone taking part in this debate. The study involved 150,000 people who had gone through treatment in California. That is
726
probably the entire number of hard drug users in this country. The cost was 209 million dollars but the saving to the Californian taxpayer was 1.5 billion dollars.
The report—it really is a tremendous report—revealed that the benefits of treatment outweigh the costs by a ratio of between 4:1 and 12:1. That is very concrete: it is something to go on amid the fog of misinformation in which we operate at the moment. If there is one single answer to the drug problem—I concede that there are probably many —it lies in reducing the existing addict population.
As I said, the Green Paper makes clear that there will be a major switch from supply to demand reduction services, largely because attempts to reduce supply do not work. However, the Green Paper fudges one of the most important issues. It would be wrong if I were to sit down, although I am sure your Lordships are longing for me to do so, without mentioning the issue of legalisation.
In what is generally a very serious and good paper, one element appears to me to be rather facetious and light. I wonder if that is not deliberate, so that we can have a debate about it in the future. The issue is dealt with in Annex D at page 111: it is probably the most important issue in the drugs world today. It is perhaps unfortunate that it is placed right at the back of the report. Some of the comments are important and need answering. The Government say:
"The case for change lies with those who are seeking to relax the law".
It is important to realise that the case for change does not lie with those who seek to relax the law. The case for change lies with those who admit that the present law does not work and that we need to do something to make sure that it does work. In the Government's view, putting the argument around the issue of criminality is narrowing it. The most extraordinary comment appears in paragraph D.3:
"Of course, taking certain laws off the statute book brings about a technical reduction in crime figures. Yet no one would suggest decriminalising armed robbery or assault on that basis".
What an extraordinary thing to say! No one has suggested that for a moment. I have never heard such a suggestion made. It is completely ridiculous. The issue is not the possession of cannabis or other drugs; the issue is around wholesale and massive acquisitive crime, and the motive behind that is to steal drugs put out of people's reach by a black market created by government. That is not an opinion but a fact. Whether we choose to do something or not about it is open for debate.
The blanket withdrawal of legal controls over drugs would be unwelcome, from a health point of view, it is said. Yes, of course. Whoever suggested otherwise? In the entire debate on the issue surrounding the legalisation of drugs, I have never heard anyone suggest the blanket withdrawal of legal controls. Indeed, most of the debate centres around making the legal controls work. The Government go on to say:
"while acquisitive crime … might be reduced by free available low-price drugs".

727
That is the nub of the issue. If you destroy a black market, take it over and lower the price, people are not going to steal to raise the money. That is the key to the issue.
The second, and most important, question at the end of the day, which the Government fasten upon, is this: would the benefit, in terms of reduced crime, be heavily outweighed by the human cost of widely increased drug dependence? There is only one purpose in legalising drugs. It is not to beat the drug issue, because it does not beat it. It is to tackle the issue of crime. It is very likely that if Government were to control the drug market, as it controls the pharmaceutical market, the tobacco market, the firearms market, the motorcar market and in fact every market we can imagine, they could control the price and hold it down at its real, as opposed to its black market, level and thus vastly reduce crime. If we can control and destroy the black market—there is every reason to believe that we can, because it has been done before—we would inevitably make drugs more available. There is no escaping that fact. If they are more available, how many more people will take them? That is the price we have to pay. That is the question we have to answer. We do not know, but we can make some reasonable assumptions.
If Black Rod were to come charging into your Lordships' House and say, "By the way everybody, heroin is legal", how many of your Lordships would rush out and buy some? Probably not many. One or two might—those with gout—but probably no one else. The reality is that most people over the age of 30 who are not currently using drugs will not rush out and start; most people under the age of 10 who have not yet started using drugs will not suddenly start. The danger area is for those aged 10 to 30. They are the ones identified in the Green Paper as currently taking drugs in ever-increasing numbers. We need to direct our services towards them. We are directing our services towards them at the moment, but we cannot direct the services that we would like because so much money is tied up in the criminalising and policing of drugs. That is the area at which we need to look closely.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, addressing the question in the summer, was not convinced of the link between drugs and crime. That may have been because he probably had not read in detail the Greater Manchester Police model research on drugs which had come out earlier. I know that he had read a little of it, because he had a copy in his hand. However, he obviously had not read it in detail. It is the most extraordinary piece of research. It demonstrates the undeniable link between drugs and crime.
I shall not go into the research now because I have been speaking for far too long. It is an extraordinarily strong piece of research. It is not good enough for a Home Secretary, or anyone else, to stand up and say that he is not convinced. Why is he not? Which figure is wrong? Let us look at it now. I have spent a great deal of time looking at it. I have asked and talked about it in detail. It is a convincing piece of research, but we do not base government policy on just one piece of research. The answer is simple. Let us do some more.
728
Let us do it in London; let us do it in Halifax; let us do it in Timbuctoo; let us do it anywhere we like; let us see—is it a freak research, or is it real? If it is real, and if it is repeated, we need to take it seriously. It demonstrates that the 1,500 registered drug addicts in Manchester cost Manchester taxpayers £26 million in any one year.
That figure contrasts unfavourably with the Government spending £25 million on health care. We cannot afford to be spending those millions throughout the country. That figure relates to 1,500 addicts. The true number of registered addicts throughout the country is 15,000. If we accept the estimates, the number goes up to 150,000. Your Lordships can do the mathematics yourselves. It is the biggest area of crime. If there is the smallest possibility that we can reduce the incidence of crime considerably or even wipe it out we cannot dismiss the matter as it is dismissed on page 111. It needs to be looked at carefully.
I started—I have come full circle—by saying that this document is important. It is. It contains much of which the Government should be proud, but it is a start only. If I were a schoolteacher, I should be tempted to say, "A very good first effort, but rather lacking in content". Fortunately, I am not a schoolteacher, but I am reminded of one of Sherlock Holmes's frequent and rather cruel admonitions of Dr. Watson, when he said to him, "Watson, you must make sure that the theory fits the facts. You must not select the facts to fit your pre-chosen theory".
I have a feeling that in some areas of the Green Paper, we have a pre-chosen theory. The only way in which we will come up with the right results is if we use to the full the facts that we have, and where we do not have them that we do the research necessary to obtain them. Then, when we have the facts, and admit their full extent, we shall have a theory. I therefore look forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, because of the concern at the increase of drug abuse, I put down an Unstarred Question for Wednesday 19th October which asked the Government what they were doing about it. As several noble Lords wished to speak, I must apologise if any confusion was caused. The debate was delayed because the Government wanted to make a Statement. They then brought out their important Green Paper Tackling Drugs Together. What was an Unstarred Question on the subject has now grown into a major government debate with two Ministers speaking. I should like to say how grateful are the organisations involved for the interest shown and the encouragement given by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who attends many meetings with them, especially on AIDS.
Up and down the country encouragement is being given to HIV and AIDS awareness, and 1st December has become known as World AIDS Day. Drug abuse and AIDS are world problems. It is with great sadness that I remember today several people who died too

729
young because of those two enormous disasters which cause so much heartbreak and anguish to families and friends across the world.
Drugs penetrate into homes, universities, schools, pubs, clubs, prisons, sports organisations, airports, railway stations and many other places. Drugs have penetrated all kinds of communities within inner cities, market towns and rural areas. The purchasing, providing and marketing is done as skilfully as in any successful business. The result to society, without doubt—I am sure that the Minister will agree with me when she sums up—is that the trade in illegal drugs has increased the amount of serious crime committed. We knew that crack would be a real danger. Our worst fears have been realised. The spread of crack has increased the amount of violence used and the carrying of guns. I ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, what suggestions the Government have for tackling seriously the problem of crack.
As many noble Lords will know, crack comes in small rocks of pure cocaine. It is smoked rather than snorted. As the drug travels directly from the lungs to the brain, its effect is more powerful. As a result of its immediate impact on the brain, all its effects are magnified. The "rush" is intense. The individual enjoys less than 15 minutes of intense rapture, exultation, confidence and feelings of well being. However, the intensity of the "rush" appears to speed up the rate of dependency. Once dependent, the user uses the drug not to feel good but to avoid the crash—the inevitable depression.
The implication for an addict's health are enormous. Most seriously affected are the respiratory system in respect of which it causes chronic bronchitis and the cardiovascular system in respect of which it causes irregular heart contractions, increases blood pressure and results ultimately in heart attacks. Other complications include depression, anxiety, epilepsy or seizures. Further problems are caused to pregnant users.
With so many law and order implications associated with the drug trade, I was surprised yesterday to read that many jobs in the Customs and Excise are being cut. I should like to congratulate the staff of Customs and Excise on their recent big drug hauls. I am sure that the Government's answer will be that most of the work is done by undercover work. However, it seems that a combination of many people working together—for instance, undercover police and customs officers—with the public and government departments giving support, is the answer. Detection and success in finding the drugs is such a difficult and skilled job. With so much deregulation, will this not make Britain more vulnerable to the drugs trade?
This year I visited two prisons where drug initiatives in rehabilitation are going on. I am sure that the treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners addicted to drugs is worthwhile. We all know that, as with alcoholics, it does not always work. One prisoner told me that he had re-offended within 24 hours of leaving prison and had planned his first job before going out.
Drug dealing within prison is very dangerous. Prisoners can get into debt and the drug barons will have systems of threatening the families outside if they do
730
not pay. If needles are circulating in a prison the prisoners will be at risk from HIV. The prisoners will have mood swings and paranoia, and can be violent. I have always believed that as regards any form of health education prisoners are a captive audience and it is time well spent. If they learn something useful it may help their families and friends when they are released. We have heard that urine testing will take place in prisons. I very much hope that along with it will be treatment. Without treatment there can be violence, as has been seen in some prisons, and riots should be avoided at all costs.
I see hope, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House that treatment and rehabilitation will be increased throughout the prison service. As Turning Point stated:
"There is no quick fix to drug policy. The misuse of drugs is the outcome of a whole range of social factors. There is no one approach that will work to prevent or cure every individual; only harm comes from claims that one treatment is the only correct one".
Surely, the wise procedure should be to find a policy that will determine an effective balance between the control of drugs and prevention and treatment. Every community needs to understand the particular nature of the drug problem in its area and to create a range of services to deal with that.
Phoenix House is an organisation which deals with several rehabilitation houses for drug abuse throughout the country. I chaired the organisation for several years and saw the important work that it did with serious drug users. As well as catering for individuals in the community, it works as an alternative to prison. In recent years it has set up some family units so that children are not separated from their parents. The National Health Service and Community Care Act has meant that it can now offer only shorter programmes to clients because of local authorities' unwillingness or inability to pay for anything else.
I would like to give your Lordships an example of the administration difficulties encountered by homes such as Phoenix House. Phoenix House has to contract with approximately 80 per cent. of the local authorities in England. All this is done on the basis of individual contracts for each service user. Each service user's contract may involve contributions from up to three or four different parties; for instance, health money, probation money and social services money from different sections within the department. The main impact that this has had upon them has been to make critical the issue of cash flow in view of the fact that over 55 per cent. of their income is now dependent on this source. They are extremely concerned that a number of local authorities are saying that their community care money has run out. At least two of the local authorities which have publicly announced this are major referers to Phoenix House services and there has been no public or media discussion about the impact of this on drug and alcohol service providers. They have ample evidence to suggest that decisions to fund people are as finance-led as they are needs-led and that there is great pressure on officers within social service departments to keep the purchasing of residential care for their client group as low as possible.

731
Some local authorities continue to be slapdash in their approach to care management, and Phoenix House experiences difficulty in getting them to take a full part in the review of a client's progress. In one instance, funding was withdrawn from somebody despite repeated requests from Phoenix House to the local authority concerned to attend care reviews. There was no response to our requests and no involvement by the relevant social services department. Then an arbitrary decision was taken to withdraw funding. The client concerned consulted solicitors and the subject is a matter of judicial review at the moment. In the meantime, an injunction has been granted to the client whereby the local authority is to continue funding and has been instructed to carry out an assessment. This is not an isolated incident. If one does not have rehabilitation services there will be more chaotic people using drugs in the community.
On a positive side, some local authorities are beginning to approach funding clients very creatively. There are now instances of local authorities having funded nursery nurses at the Phoenix House Hove Family Project and aftercare for people in private-sector tenancies in order that those from Phoenix House can continue to visit and support them following their departure from the house. Both of these were previously unfundable and other initiatives are to be welcomed.
Phoenix House, with all its experience, will be very pleased to help in any way that it can with the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit and the task force, which is looking at the effectiveness of interventions with drug users. It is vital that, if the phrase "tackling drugs together" is not just words, everybody concerned works together and that statutory bodies put aside any professional jealousies when dealing with non-governmental organisations.
Everyone in Government should be working closely with voluntary bodies as many of the people working at ground level are closest to the problems. Some have been there themselves and know the weaknesses and the ways around. They are streetwise. I should like to recommend Fountain House. It is a nursing home for people who have been or are drug users or have HIV or AIDS. The facilities are excellent. I wish only that there were such places for other groups of disabled people.
Fountain House is run by Phoenix House. Having attended its opening in the summer, when my noble kinsman was in a BUPA hospital, I found that the bathroom facilities were much superior to those provided by BUPA. It also has a friendly approach and a lovely garden. Much thought has gone into making it patient-friendly.
I hope that what people will have read in the papers and heard on the radio and television today will stop them being complacent about HIV. Prevention is so vital. The problems that exist in Africa now exist in Asia. I read the sad story of the missionary nurse who became infected through her work and is now dying of AIDS.
I would ask the Government to look at and help with the difficult problems for women who have HIV and who have AIDS. So often they are running a house and
732
family and do not have people to look after them. They are the carers. Transport to enable them to reach treatment can be difficult and to travel long distances with children when one feels ill is not so easy. The Mildmay Mission Hospital now has a family unit and the London Lighthouse is considering services for women, but is finding it difficult. I hope that the Government will listen to Positively Women who understand the many problems in this area. There needs to be a choice and there needs to be flexibility.
Education is vital. Such organisations as ACET, AIDS Care Education, are doing a great deal to help. It is very important to have responsible and effective sex education in schools and colleges. ACET distributed over half a million copies of the booklet HIV, Facts for Life. Education on HIV, AIDS and drug abuse and other health problems, and a positive approach to keeping healthy, need to be available not only to students but also to parents, teachers and governors who need educating. They all need training.
Recently a girl aged about 11 gave her biology teacher a packet of white powder and said to him, "I found this in mummy's bag: I want her to stop taking drugs".
Many people in Yorkshire were shocked when they read in the Yorkshire Post last Saturday about a young couple who were found dead in the lavatory of a restaurant in Dewsbury. They had died as a result of a drugs overdose. Their young son was in the restaurant play area oblivious of the tragedy. There will not be an easy way out of this terrible problem.
I should like to mention an important point. I have heard from the health authority on which I serve that there will be total funding for some GPs. When GP fund holding is extended, it will be very dangerous if this is extended to GUM services. Patients who may have a venereal disease or who think they may have HIV need confidentiality of the highest level. There are a few GPs who do exceptional work and who do care. They, of course, should be funded for the services they provide. However, many people do not want to go to their GP for various reasons. There should be freedom of choice, and prevention of drug abuse and HIV should be paramount. I hope that the Green Paper will stimulate debate across the country. All the people working in prevention, education and treatment need encouragement. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is a long-term process.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, today is World AIDS Day and as so many speakers have pointed out, it is a very appropriate day for this debate. I welcome the Green Paper. I notice that the Motion asks us to note it, which I do. I do not intend to speak on the Green Paper but I think it is good that we have it.
As far as drug users are concerned, a point that has not been mentioned is that HIV is only transmitted if one person already has an HIV infection. Therefore, the most important matter is to control the spread of AIDS and HIV; and to do that, early detection is of course important. Simple tests can confirm the presence of HIV and these tests should be encouraged, not discouraged.

733
Any deterrent to people presenting themselves for tests must be removed. In the past, insurance application questions have been a problem. A national survey carried out in 1991 by the Department of Health estimated that the numbers being put off having HIV tests were,
"certainly in the thousands, possibly in the tens of thousands".
The Secretary of State said at that time about testing:
"We must remove the barriers in the interests of public health".
This has not been easy and the Terrence Higgins Trust has played a significant part in this matter, but I must give full credit to the Department of Health for its success in persuading the Association of British Insurers to change the questions on application forms. This change affects all those, heterosexual or homosexual, who are considering an HIV test. I am informed that in the past many GPs have not recorded the information that someone was seeking an HIV test for fear that it might prejudice an insurance application. Many patients still choose to use the anonymous testing centres. There is a clinic at the Royal Free. Patients may enter it in the morning, be given a number and can have the result in the afternoon. No names are asked.
On 25th July the Association of British Insurers announced in a news release the withdrawal of its previous recommended question on HIV/AIDS testing and the introduction of a new one. One of the reasons for this is that over the past two years, as the association said, testing has become much more commonplace for screening purposes. The question now only asks whether a person has had a positive test. The previous question had asked whether someone had had a negative test. On health grounds, I think it wrong that anyone should ask whether a patient has had any negative test of any type, whether it is a test for breast screening, or a chest X-ray or any other sort of test. Surely it must be good that a person should be screened for a condition rather than have that held against him when applying for insurance. I believe that it is right that the Association of British Insurers has decided that it is no longer appropriate or necessary to ask the previous question. It has produced a new recommended wording. The question now is:
"Have you tested positive for HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis B or C, or have you been tested/treated for other sexually transmitted diseases or are you awaiting the result of such a test"?
Everyone is satisfied that that new wording protects the insurance companies. After all, they cannot give open insurance to someone who has had a positive test, no matter whether it was a positive test for cancer or HIV or any other condition. The insurance companies had a sound point in that regard when they said they would have had to increase all premiums considerably if no such questions could be asked. However, the new recommended wording was considered satisfactory and a code of practice was issued.
Some companies have already reprinted their forms, one of which is the Scottish Provident but it has still not really quite complied with the new wording. A sample form of the Scottish Provident asks:
"Have you tested positive for HIV/AIDS or hepatitis B or C?".
734
That part is all right, but then the form puts an entirely separate question:
"Have you ever been tested or received treatment in connection with any sexually transmitted disease, or are you awaiting the result of such a test?".
That, again, is asking someone to declare a negative test and I think that attention should be drawn to that.
In the copy of Which? dated 1st December 1994 there is a section on that, very point. The magazine asked 105 life insurance companies whether they had changed the wording on their forms to reflect the new code.
The article states that,
"67 replied, and almost half said they have changed the wording on forms … The rest said changes will be introduced from January 1995. [But] if you are sent an old form and object to the HIV/AIDS questions, contact the company and ask for the new style of question as agreed by the ABI".
Although that advice is sound, I still think that it leaves people feeling a bit vulnerable if they have to phone and ask for a new form because people would ask them why they needed a new form and why they could not complete the old one.
If the code of practice has been changed, it should be complied with. For that reason there are a few questions that I must put to the Government. Do the Government know that so far only 50 per cent. of insurers have complied with the guidance? Is that acceptable? Does the Which? information that the remainder intend to comply by 1st January 1995 accord with the Government's information on this? Are the Government satisfied that that will happen? Were they aware that that one major company—Scottish Provident—had made that something of a trick question by dividing it into two, as I pointed out?
It is very important, as a public health issue, for us to realise that detection is an important aspect. Anything that discourages people from attending clinics is not in the interests of the public. If people are diagnosed as having HIV they will perhaps act differently towards others. However, if they are not aware of having HIV they do not give any thought to what might happen to others.
Therefore, although work is continuing worldwide to find a cure, and there is no cure for AIDS at present, I believe that the time will come when we come closer to a cure. Perhaps we shall first reach a stage where the disease is controllable. It will then be in the interests of patients for it to be known at an early stage that they have the disease. In most diseases the condition is more easily treated at an early stage.
Those are specific questions, but they are relevant to our debate on this matter of HIV and AIDS. Although drugs are one means by which the disease is transmitted this is, as many speakers have said, a much wider issue, and therefore I feel that I have to put those questions.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should make it clear that in this debate I am speaking from a Back Bench—although not very far back because the Benches at the very back of the Chamber are very cold. What I shall say is not yet Labour Party policy, although naturally I hope that in due course that will move in my direction.

735
The Green Paper will be useful if it stimulates debate on a countrywide basis and the White Paper which follows it takes account of some of the questions—and provides some answers—which will arise as a result of that debate.
Internationally, the drugs trade is estimated to handle goods worth some 254 billion dollars to the major traffickers. That is equivalent to approximately a third of our national income and is the same as the United States defence budget. No wonder Colombian or mafioso drug barons can defy, suborn and sometimes outgun governments. I am afraid that the Green Paper gives no sign of any new policies which are likely to make any noticeable impact on the operations of those very rich international gangsters. Making 550 Customs and Excise officials redundant does not seem likely to help to achieve the Government's aims. That makes me wonder whether the Government are wholeheartedly behind the aims set out in the Green Paper.
As a general practitioner who has had a number of drug-dependent patients over the years, I should like to concentrate on the health problems created by drugs. It is important to recognise that these are in two categories: those which can be ascribed to the active principle of the drugs themselves, administered in a normal dose or, if injected, using a sterile syringe needle; and those which occur as a result of obtaining drugs illegally, in an impure state, in a cloak-and-dagger market "on the street". I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I would place crack cocaine in that category.
It is that latter category which results in the heavy burden on the NHS—mentioned in the Green Paper—on GPs in their surgeries and accident and emergency departments throughout the country. Those problems can be due to an often fatal overdose as a result of a batch of a drug being less "cut" or adulterated and thus stronger than expected. They can be due to an abscess and septicaemia as a result of the use of shared or otherwise unsterile syringes or needles. As many noble Lords have pointed out, HIV and hepatitis B are spread by the use of shared injecting equipment.
A pure drug can have long-term effects, as indicated in the Green Paper, in the same way as nicotine—which is the most addictive of all drugs—and alcohol. However, few, if any, of the currently controlled drugs—whether opiates, including heroin, cocaine, cannabis, or other soft drugs—have worse long-term effects than nicotine, which is lethal even when used as indicated, or alcohol with its adverse social effects, liver damage and carcinogenic effects when used in excess. However, in favour of alcohol is the fact that in low doses—fewer than 21 units for men and 14 a week for women—it has been shown to be beneficial to the cardiovascular system.
Whatever may be the long-term clinical, psychological or social effects of the use of unadulterated controlled drugs, they are not the problems which concern GPs and accident and emergency departments, where the ill-effects seen are mostly due to the impurities and varied strengths of street drugs and unsterile injections.
736
There is a tendency by many to regard those who use drugs as beyond the pale or morally tainted. They are stigmatised. However, that has no logical basis, any more than it would be logical to regard smokers or drinkers in that way. The Green Paper gives some statistics to show how widespread the use of illegal drugs is now in England: 44 per cent. of 20 to 24 year-olds in inner cities use drugs; 14 per cent. of those aged between 12 and 59 have experience of cannabis use. In a survey of a true random sample of patients registered in a group practice in North West London earlier this year funded by the North Thames Regional Hospital Authority, I found that 48 per cent. of females and 51 per cent. of males aged between 16 and 44 had used cannabis at some time, and 18 per cent. were current users.
Most controlled drugs, as with nicotine and alcohol, can give pleasure, and produce relaxation or increased feelings of awareness or alertness. If used occasionally, or even regularly, in a reasonable dose as a pure substance, they cause minimal or no harm. The same could be said of alcohol. Similarly, habitual or excessive use may cause harm to some people, although others seem to get away with it. The violence associated with drug use is not due to the drug itself but almost always to disputes among rival traffickers in illegal drugs. The effect of drugs is only on the person concerned, much more so than with alcohol, which has serious social effects.
It may justifiably be said that there is often social pressure, as well as pressure from pushers, on young people to start using drugs. That has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I agree with the Green Paper that, theoretically at least, health education about drugs can be useful. However, the noble Baroness must pay heed to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and take note of the Australian experience. The same applies to tobacco and alcohol, and also to sex education. We need to prepare people to handle their actions in a healthy way. We must take note of what is happening and not preach to people to stop. Of course the harmful effects can be mentioned in health education, but it is also very important for young people to be shown how to behave and how to use substances in a safe and healthy way. With regard to tobacco and alcohol, the pushers are the manufacturers themselves who promote their products through widespread and highly effective legal advertising.
Deaths and serious health problems from illicit use of controlled drugs almost always occur among heavy habitual users, although accidents happen with novices who may not yet have developed tolerance. It is for those chronic users that treatment and rehabilitation facilities need to be available in every health district, with more in those with a high prevalence. We should take note of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is having in keeping some of those centres going. Those centres should be able to assist users who genuinely want to come off drugs, as well as those who are "stuck" and cannot manage to face a drug free life, even though logically they would like to. My long experience with drug users has convinced me and many other realists

737
that many users will not succeed with drug reduction programmes until they are ready—and that may be many years ahead.
The Green Paper mentions that methadone programmes—the noble Baroness also referred to them—in several centres will be evaluated. That is very good so far as it goes. But I have found that many long-term addicts are quite reluctant to use methadone as a heroin substitute. It is well known that many, perhaps a majority, of heroin users who have a regular supply of methadone sell it on, in order to help to buy the heroin that they really want. A recent Home Office statistics bulletin indicates that more deaths are now notified as due to methadone than to heroin although there are fewer methadone users.
There is a strong case for treatment centres to be allowed to prescribe heroin to certain long-term users, not necessarily to be injected but, for example, made up as reefers which give a "high" rather like an intravenous injection but without the danger. Between 1920 and the mid-1960s confirmed drug addicts were prescribed the opiate they needed and the problem remained very small indeed. Since that policy—following the recommendation of the Rolleston Committee—was abandoned, the problem has vastly increased. The decision to offer only, or mainly, reduction programmes in drug clinics has been totally ineffective in reducing drug dependency, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out.
It would be too simplistic to say that that more restricted approach has been the only reason for the rise in drug abuse. Of course, the easy availability of air travel would have increased the number of addicts in Britain, or elsewhere in the world, in any case. But the approach up to now of restricting prescribed drugs has had the effect of greatly encouraging the illegal black market as well as increasing the health hazards of drug use including the spread of AIDS. What success we have had in slowing HIV transmission in drug abusers—it is considerable, as my noble friend described—comes from the recognition that many users will not be able to give up the habit, at least in the near future. However, the very best success rates in preventing HIV transmission are achieved in clinics in which maintenance drugs are prescribed. I cite as an example the Widnes Clinic which routinely tests its clients for HIV and has yet to detect a new HIV case.
Perhaps I may say a few words about drug related acquisitive crime. The Green Paper calculates that heroin abuse generates a maximum of £864 million worth of stolen goods, on the basis that a thief obtains one-third of the value of the stolen goods. In my opinion, and in that of the addicts I have questioned, the proportion is more likely to be one-fifth, or even less. That means that such thieves will need to steal nearly £1.5 billion worth of goods to raise the estimated £288 million that they need. That calculation relates to heroin alone. The total value of goods stolen to buy drugs is probably nearer to £2 billion; that is, nearer to half of all acquisitive crime than the one-fifth estimated in the Green Paper.
738
Supplying long-term users with the substance that they want on a daily basis, strictly controlled, until they are ready to come off in their own time would have a remarkable effect on crime. At that same Widnes Clinic with the good HIV record, a study was done by the police on the crime records of 142 clients before and after starting maintenance treatment. The convictions dropped from 6.88 to 0.44 per person during comparable periods of one-and-a-half years before and after the treatment. That is a reduction of 15 fold. It is no wonder that senior policemen in all parts of the country are in favour of a change in the current drug policy—disappointingly a change which is not suggested by the Green Paper.
Noble Lords will no doubt be thinking that what I have suggested might lead me to the conclusion that legalisation of drugs would be a logical step. If so, they would be half right and half wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has referred to the annex of the Green Paper entitled "The legalisation debate". It sets up some Aunt Sallys and proceeds to knock them down. I cannot help quoting again the passage to which he referred which states:
"Of course, taking certain laws off the statute books bring about a technical reduction in crime figures. Yet no one would suggest decriminalising armed robbery or assault on that basis".
That fatuous comparison completely misses the point. Drug use in itself harms no one except perhaps the user if he or she uses it foolishly. If drug use were decriminalised, a user would still be committing a crime if they indulged in robbery or assault or were being a public nuisance; and other legislation exists to deal with that.
Perhaps I may refer again to the same passage as the noble Lord. It is true that,
"the blanket withdrawal of legal controls … would be unwelcome".
That would certainly result in an increase in drug use, although whether to the same extent as use of tobacco or alcohol is doubtful. At the moment, society suffers a blanket lack of controls on tobacco and alcohol. I believe that there is plenty of room to increase such controls, as noble Lords who listened to the debate last July on banning tobacco advertising will have realised.
I believe that there is a strong case for decriminalising cannabis, but not as yet for opiates, cocaine and some other drugs, although that must be a possible future option. Three countries in Europe—Denmark; Holland and Germany—have relaxed restrictions on cannabis by looking the other way, by letting the market operate. I suggest that we do it by licensing certain outlets—for example, pharmacists—to supply cannabis under a state monopoly. In that way quality can be controlled, a record kept of the amount sold, and excise duty charged for the Government's and taxpayers' benefit. Canada and Scandinavia have a similar system for alcohol which seems to work quite well. The price must be low enough and the availability widespread enough to make a black market uneconomic, but high enough to make the buyer think twice. Cigarettes and alcohol set a precedent.
In 1991, 84 per cent. of all drug offences were concerned with cannabis. If that drug were decriminalised the police would be freed for more urgent tasks. The decriminalisation of opiates and

739
cocaine cannot be done in one country alone. International agreements will be necessary among a group of nations before that is possible. The Dutch experiment indicates that one nation cannot do it alone.
However, short of legalisation, the demand for heroin and other opiates would be greatly reduced if more treatment centres were able to prescribe on a long-term basis for confirmed users. Not only would their health benefit, but they would not need to trade in heroin, as they now do to help finance their habit. That would have a major effect on reducing the amount of street heroin available to attract younger non-users, some of whom, having experimented with it, become dependent upon it.
In conclusion, I am sure that the world will eventually realise that prohibition of addictive substances is a recipe for disaster, as did the United States Congress in the 1930s after the disastrous period of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, which resulted in an increase rather than a decrease of alcohol use and a wave of organised crime and gang warfare. That is where we are now, worldwide, in relation to drugs. Until that basic truth is accepted we shall continue to knock our heads against a brick wall and the problem will get worse. I am afraid that the Green Paper brings us no nearer to a real solution.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, first I must apologise that I have to leave before 6 p.m. so I shall not be able to stay for the end of the debate.
I think that we can all agree that the control of the import of drugs is not getting any better and for every shipment that is intercepted there are many more that get through. The new open frontiers of Europe, along with the increasing ingenuity of the so-called drug barons, make the problem of interception ever more difficult. In spite of some successful drug interceptions, the enforcement agencies throughout the world are fighting a losing battle against the force of the drug barons and the weight of their finance. We are told that they could lose 50 per cent. of their shipments and still make a large profit, possibly an even greater one, as shortage of supply increases the price and the profit. Moreover, the drug cartels now control such huge investments that this alone poses a dangerous and serious threat to the economies of many countries—probably far greater than is appreciated, if one is to believe what one reads. It is said that every dollar bill in the United States now has a trace of heroin on it. Articles have appeared suggesting that the scale of the drug economy is colossal, even in the terms of national budgets. If those reports are really true then it is a serious danger. The stranglehold in many countries of this new Mafia over police, politicians and judges by violence and economic muscle is fast becoming as big a danger as the drugs are to the addicts. Traffickers have the muscle to bribe and threaten on an ever-increasing scale which could lead to situations such as the Mafia in Sicily.
One small example in Glasgow was of a policeman investigating a drug case. His dog was shot and he was warned that his wife would be next. Physical threats and
740
huge bribes are in danger of interrupting the whole battle against drugs. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned, there is a similarity with the days of prohibition in the United States where scarcity of alcohol drove up the price and made a fortune for bootleggers. It is the same now with drugs: the more the prohibition, the greater the incentive to trade in them at a vast profit. Even where the penalty is death, as in the Far East, people will still take the risk of the high profit available to them.
If we are to stop the trade in drugs and cannot do so at our frontiers, we must look for other means of stopping it. There is another way that would be far more effective and far cheaper and it is different from the legalisation set out in Appendix D of the consultation document. As has been described by the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Rea, it is by the route of making heroin freely available to any addict on prescription on the National Health Service through specific clinics, though definitely not, of course, to first-time users. Once that was the case, heroin would no longer have any value on the streets, as it could be got for the asking. The profit motive would be destroyed, it would be unnecessary for a pusher to burgle or to push drugs to get his own fix as he could just go to the clinic and get his ration for free. He would be allowed enough for that day only, so he would have little over to sell, but above all else, he would have no incentive to do so. There would be no point in the drug barons taking the risk of sending the heroin into the country, as no one would want to pay for what they could get for free. Free availability on prescription definitely does not mean that it would become legal to trade heroin, any more than it is legal—other than for a chemist—to trade pharmaceutical drugs. That would send out very much the wrong message.
I believe that Holland and Spain have legalised drugs and it has proved to be a disaster. Legalisation is not the road to take, but as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, explained, free availability is another matter, although there is a fine difference. Indeed, the penalties for dealing should become far more severe, to equate with the death sentence of the Far East, with a very high minimum prison sentence to force the users into the clinics where it could be had for free. That would provide a very large carrot and a very hard stick. The only potential buyers would be non-addicts wanting it for the first time—a minuscule market compared with the supply to regular addicts.
With the bottom having dropped out of the market, the illegal supply would dry up, making it harder for new people to become addicts, while the established ones would be no worse off, but would have become identifiable for treatment and advice. Meanwhile, the National Health Service could buy its supplies cheaply from such third world countries of its choice where it could be grown legally and under some degree of control.
The cost to the National Health Service of freely available drugs would be a tiny fraction of the cost of the drugs available on the black market, and would be offset by the great savings in the cost of treating HIV, and the huge and dramatic reduction in drug related

741
crime. At the clinics, addicts would be well treated as customers, but would be identifiable, and could be subjected to information, education and encouragement to come off the drugs.
It is true that the state would be providing the wherewithal for the addict to commit suicide. But the fate of the addict, who is harming himself by his own will, and who would anyhow get his fix by foul means if not by fair, must be set against the failure of present control methods, the misery of those contracting HIV, the interference with justice by the drug Mafia, the hijacking of capital assets, and possibly financial institutions, and above all the misery of the victims of drug-related crimes, who have done nothing to deserve the distress of being mugged or robbed.
I am glad to see in the consultation document that more attention is to be given to drug information in schools. I wonder why that has not happened before; it must be the key. But if, despite the warnings and information that he receives, the addict insists on abusing himself—and he will do this whether he gets the drugs free or by burglary —it is better that he suffers his self-inflicted injury without hurting the rest of society.
I am told that it is difficult to persuade an addict to make a change until he has reached the gutter of despair. Making the drug freely available would put him in that position much sooner, but he would then have immediate access to rehabilitation at his clinic as soon as he was ready to accept it.
There is then the whole question of all the other drugs that are taken. Perhaps if heroin were to be readily available free, the purchase of other drugs would become less attractive. Few people will pay for what they can get free. But taking heroin off the streets would be an advance even if it did not solve the rest of the drug problem.
Many traffickers are known to the police, but cannot be picked up due to the restraints on the way in which the police can obtain evidence. The new law relating to the loss of the right to silence will help, and there are other advances that will help to address this problem. One of the most important things is that there should be ever-increasing co-operation between agencies, not only to include people such as the Customs and action groups, but also foreign agencies. However, things are moving in the right direction and improving. We heard from the Minister about the plans that are afoot and they are encouraging. Furthermore, there seems to be reasonable satisfaction with the police and with the way in which drug dealers are sentenced in court.
Free drugs is a very easy policy to misrepresent. When the Labour Party in Malta tried to introduce it, it contributed to its downfall. It is too easy to misrepresent the policy as "being soft on drugs". However, before we dismiss such a scheme, let us ask ourselves whether the present method of control, namely interception, is or has any chance ever of working. If the answer is no—and I believe that to be the case—then it is time to be very brave and to face the alternative.
Free drugs without legislation to trade them should be given serious consideration. But, whether or not the concept of free heroin is accepted, Tackling Drugs
742
Together is a very good start and should eventually lead to a national drugs strategy which it is to be hoped may have some effect.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he can explain why he thinks that heroin dependent users should get their supplies free on the National Health Service. Why should they not pay at least the cost of the drug and a surplus, which would benefit the taxpayer?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I would not want to argue about that. The point is, if the drug is made sufficiently available to the drug users that would kill the trade and make it totally unprofitable for the drug barons to import it.
Lord Rea: It would still be at the same price as a packet of cigarettes.
5.51 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have given us a chance to debate two very important subjects. But I do rather feel that today we are debating two separate issues. AIDS and HIV are part of the drugs problem, and the spread of AIDS and HIV among drug addicts is only one of many health problems which drug addicts face.
I can find much to agree with in the Green Paper. I was particularly heartened by the descriptions of some of the local initiatives and the success that they are having in rebuilding the confidence and sense of security of some communities which are threatened by the drug culture. I wonder whether those projects involved a lot of money being put into a small area, or whether the sort of cost for the projects could be borne by the local authority, which may have several such areas within its boundaries. I am also pleased to see that the slightly secretive Cabinet sub-committee of three years ago has blossomed into full-blown interdepartmental collaboration, which is very welcome. In particular, I welcome the intention to put more money into drug education—although, bearing in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to whom I always listen with great respect on the matter of drugs. We should put more money into drug education; but it is important to evaluate different kinds of drug education and to see what works and what does not work.
I should like to make a point about the health of those suffering from HIV and AIDS. Over the past couple of years I have become very interested in the possible benefits of treating these conditions by means of the oxygen therapies. This is a fairly technical matter but it is timely that it should be aired in this House. The oxygen therapies are the various ways of using oxygen as a bactericide and viricide. They comprise treatment with hydrogen peroxide, orally or intravenously, and treatment with ozone by infusion into the blood either intravenously or by removing a small quantity of blood, passing the ozone through it and then returning it to the body. I have met twice with the noble Baroness the Minister, once in 1993 and once last summer, to attempt to persuade the Government to provide funds for a

743
proper investigation into the efficacy of treating AIDS and HIV with hydrogen peroxide. It would be appropriate also for them to investigate the various forms of ozone.
Before I move to the various political pressures on this endeavour, I should like to explain the theory behind the use of hydrogen peroxide and ozone and their effectiveness against viruses and bacteria. It seems that these groups of organisms evolved during a time in Earth's history when there was much less oxygen in the atmosphere than occurs naturally at present. I say "naturally" because in polluted urban environments the figure can be reduced to as low as 11 per cent. In nature, oxygen forms about 20 per cent. of the content of the atmosphere. The effect of adding oxygen to the bloodstream in these ways is to create an oxygen-rich environment which is hostile to viruses and bacteria. The additional oxygen oxidises the foreign proteins that it encounters, which form the cell walls and fragments of the micro-organism. But in the doses recommended by doctors with experience in this field it does not attack the body's own proteins.
The effect that I am describing is similar to, but far greater than, the effect of lots of exercise, fresh air, and fresh fruit and vegetables, which also contain hydrogen peroxide. So, in fact, do our bodies. Hydrogen peroxide is a naturally occurring body product used by the white blood cells to destroy pathogens.
Originating in Germany in the 19th century, oxygen therapies are now used in many countries as an effective treatment for AIDS sufferers, many thousands of whom have had their death sentences reversed by these treatments. If I am right, how is it that what I am saying is probably new to most of your Lordships? If I am right, why is anyone still dying of AIDS?
The meetings that I mentioned with the Minister filled me with despair. Hydrogen peroxide is, as I have pointed out, a naturally occurring body product. It is also produced very cheaply by means of a very simple chemical process. The literature is in the public domain and is available to anyone who wants to know. Incidentally, there is no case of anyone being harmed by the sort of doses that are currently advocated by experienced practitioners. I should add that, for a condition as serious as AIDS, treatment by a qualified medical person with experience of oxygen therapies is obviously essential.
Hydrogen peroxide is what is known in the drug trade and in the Department of Health as an "orphan drug". What is an orphan drug? It is a product that might be of great benefit to mankind but which does not have the opportunity to prove itself for one reason and one reason only; namely, there is no money in it. I am not being fanciful or extreme in saying that. That is what I and colleagues who are interested in this matter were told by Health Department officials at both meetings.
One medically qualified official was incredulous that a product could be so beneficial and yet not have its medical benefit matched by commensurate commercial opportunity. That is incredible. She told us that, if it was so good, it must be commercially viable to spend the £100,000 plus that is required for clinical trials. The fact
744
is that it is not. One company that produces hydrogen peroxide has calculated that it would take 18 years to recoup the investment incurred doing the clinical trial.
The pharmaceutical industry spends millions of pounds every year on public relations. One company even took the trouble to send me the report of a trial that it had carried out to prove that wholemeal bread was no better than soggy white bread. It is not only that there is no money to be made following successful clinical trials; the main problem, I submit, is that the legal drug industry is worried that something as cheap as hydrogen peroxide would cut into profits currently earned from products that would be rendered unnecessary if it were properly investigated and found to be effective.
In my view, the evidence in favour is so compelling that, in refusing to investigate the possibilities for saving lives and improving the health of AIDS and HIV sufferers, the Government bear a heavy responsibility for the continuing deaths and reduced quality of life of these patients. Any investigation must include medically qualified people who have experience of these treatments. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will be aware that the European authorities are clamping down on hydrogen peroxide products in the dental profession. I rather suspect that that is coming from the same source as other restrictions on natural health products.
We may be in a situation where the medical profession dares not investigate this matter properly because the political implications of having failed to do so earlier are too horrible to contemplate. I can only say to the Minister that I am sure that people who are affected or who have been affected by the loss of friends or relatives will welcome any initiative which saves lives in the future.
Before I leave the specific problem of AIDS and HIV, there is one final matter that I should like to mention. The question of the re-use and sharing of hypodermic syringes is a very important issue. I have been told that all hypodermics are marked with a warning that they should be used only once. If that is true, this, for people whose judgment has been impaired by previous drug use on the present imperative of "getting a fix", will have the same effect as the government health warning has on those of your Lordships who are smokers.
Yet it is very simple to produce syringes that are impossible to use for a second time. Several patents have been taken out for such syringes. My information is that after the retooling costs the cost per syringe is not significantly more than for existing syringes. You would think that manufacturers would see the commercial benefit of non-reusable syringes. Why has the Government not made it illegal to sell, produce or import reusable syringes?
I said at the beginning that I regarded today's debate as really two debates and the second matter I want to talk about is another aspect of the drugs issue relating to the health of drug users. I hesitate to use the word "misusers" because the distinction between legal and illegal drugs has become blurred over the past century or so. Not only are prescription drugs stolen and traded by addicts, but several of the major street drugs started

745
life as prescription drugs. I am thinking here of heroin, cocaine, morphine, amphetamines and LSD which were all originally prescription drugs.
I want to talk about one aspect of rehabilitation, leaving it to others to go into details about what one speaker called "the interstices of policy". I want to look at one particular aspect of which I have some experience, having worked for a time with former drug addicts at a rehabilitation centre which uses the Narconon programme, developed by the American humanitarian and philosopher Mr. Ron Hubbard. Almost certainly, his single most important contribution to the science of drug rehabilitation was the discovery that drug residues lodge and persist in the fatty tissues of the body and re-stimulate the craving which a person has for his drugs. Other pollutants such as PCBs also remain in the body in that way.
The detoxification period at a rehabilitation centre using the Narconon programme is followed by a number of days, a part of each day being spent on a programme of exercise, sauna and food supplements—vitamins, minerals and oils. It has now been established beyond all doubt that that regimen enables the body to eliminate the drug and other residues from the tissues and so eliminate the physical source of any continued craving. The physical aspect is by no means the whole story and the persons undergoing the programme will also examine in detail the ethical basis of their lives, the way they relate to others and the original reason why they started taking drugs.
The sauna programme is carried out under the general supervision of a medical doctor, who examines all participants before they start. It has also been used to good effect by medical doctors who specialise in treating patients whose bodies have been contaminated by industrial chemicals such as dioxin and PCBs.
Recently, technical advances in equipment used in measuring small concentrations of chemicals in sweat and urine have made it possible to monitor the amounts which are released from the body during the sauna programme. It has also been found that, having completed the programme, the levels of drugs or unwanted chemicals in the body continue to reduce, as, once mobilised, they continue to be released.
I suggest that any drug rehabilitation method or programme which does not use the sauna programme faces an uphill struggle in the battle to free drug addicts from their addiction.
The importance of food supplements in the treatment of addiction is shown by the experience of Narconon staff, who found that every person coming in with a drug problem was deficient to some degree in certain vitamins and minerals. Those deficiencies themselves seem to be the root of many personality and emotional difficulties that these individuals experience and, when remedied, there is immediate improvement in their viewpoint on life. For example, it appears that the very experience of "getting high" on any drug, whether it be alcohol, stimulants, depressants, barbiturates, hallucinogenics or whatever, depletes vitamin B1 significantly, vitamin B3, vitamin C, calcium and magnesium, as well as many others in varying amounts. When large supplementation of those is administered
746
either orally or intravenously to new arrivals, whether in withdrawal or having taken drugs just recently, their ability to reason and to view their surroundings and problems more calmly—in other words to function as human beings—shows rapid improvement. All the participants are examined by highly competent and up-to-date nutritional specialists.
I recall a conversation that I had some months ago with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about whether it is possible to cure drug and alcohol addiction. It may be an almost philosophical point, because one could say that, if someone is not using a drug, then he is cured. But the noble Lord's viewpoint was very definitely that there is no cure. The view of people with experience at Narconon is that there is a cure. When I said that I knew people who had been through the Narconon programme and were cured, he said that in that case they cannot have been addicts. I found that a rather circular piece of logic.
I know that the noble Lord helps to promote the Minnesota Method, based on the twelve steps. I know that it does a lot of good for a huge number of people. But I have a philosophical disagreement with it; namely, that the first of the twelve steps states that one is powerless in the face of one's addiction; in other words, that there is no cure. That is simply not true, and especially not true if one is able to remove the drug residues from the body, which is exactly what is achieved by the Narconon sauna programme. As I have already explained, that process is now quite simple to measure.
The Government are interested in value for money. Narconon unquestionably has the best long-term success rate of any rehabilitation programme in the world. The reason, apart from the skill and dedication of the staff, is the sauna programme. I am happy to be able to announce that Narconon is now able and prepared to train other rehabilitation professionals to deliver either the whole Narconon programme, or just the sauna detoxification part of it, to improve the effectiveness of their work.
As part of the Government's ongoing evaluation of different rehabilitation programmes, the Minister may like to study the results of the many Narconon centres throughout Europe, including the one in the south of England. She will find them unsurpassed. She will find that there is a cure for addiction and that it is available and achievable. There is, in fact, no need for anyone who wants to be cured of his addiction to be unable to be so. The word is getting around the drug taking community: "If you really want to get off drugs, go to Narconon." That is not just because of the sauna detox. Former addicts whom I have met at Narconon say that there is a qualitative difference from many other rehabs in the way they are treated as individuals. They are never invalidated; no one evaluates their experience for them; they are enabled to find their own way out of their problems.
I have focused quite deliberately on the one rehabilitation programme with which I am familiar. We have an immense problem with drug-taking and I have spoken about one very effective solution to one aspect of the problem. I do not mean to discount the

747
enormously valuable and dedicated work done by those who work in rehabilitation centres up and down the country.
I end by saying that I wish the Government well with their co-ordinated strategy. Any contribution that I or Narconon can make to that success will be gladly made.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on this document, and I do not congratulate them lightly. Far more do I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mancroft on his epoch-making speech. It should be studied with the very greatest care by all the authorities concerned.
I shall strike a more sombre note, though in the same direction. It has been pointed out by several noble Lords that the war against drugs looks very like prohibition in the United States. It is a repetition on a world wide scale of that gigantic, failed experiment. The fact is that laws against drugs make them expensive and therefore profitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, among others, pointed out. Laws against drugs confine the trade in drugs to those who are willing to break the law and therefore confine that lucrative trade to criminals. That is like adding two and two. I ask noble Lords' forgiveness for speaking in such an elementary fashion. Nevertheless, it is reasoning which seems to be widely ignored.
I make two predictions. Despite the laws, drug-taking has expanded and is expanding explosively. Of my predictions one is certain and the other probable. My certain prediction is that drugs will be legalised in all major countries within 20 years, and in the case of marijuana, within 10 years. My probable prediction is that within 40 years the President of the United States will be the grandson of a drug baron, as President Kennedy was the grandson of a bootlegger.
The most depressing aspect of the Green Paper, much of which is so good, is the way in which it excludes all serious discussion as to whether it is right that drugs should remain illegal. Before turning to that matter I want to make clear that I am not advocating legalisation at this moment. One—though one only—of the arguments against it in Annex D is absolutely decisive: that is, that drugs are not a British problem alone but an international one. Unilateral legalisation would attract addicts and traffickers to this country as a pot of jam attracts wasps. The Dutch experience has not been good. Legalisation, when it comes—not "if' it comes—will be by international agreement and will take many years to achieve. However, it is up to us in this country to start discussions on those lines.
Much of the rest of Annex D, as was pointed out, can only be described as boneheaded. Paragraph D3 has already been mocked a little; it suggests an analogy between decriminalising drugs and allowing armed robbery. That analogy is not only false, but it is also callow. It would be scouted in any fifth-form debating society. I am sorry for the authors of the document if they cannot see the difference between robbing a man
748
of something he dearly wishes to retain and providing someone with a commodity he desperately wants to have.
Similarly, in paragraph D5 the document admits that cheaper drugs may mean that users would commit less crime to feed their habit. But then adds that,
"the benefit in terms of reduced crime would be heavily outweighed by the human costs of widely increased drug dependence".
Would it indeed? That can be contested on both moral and practical grounds. The moral point is that the person mugged by a desperate addict is an involuntary victim; the taker of a drug has chosen to take it. The practical points are perhaps more important. There are many grounds for thinking that drugs would do far less harm if they were legal, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out some of them. But let us look at them.
Heroin is mainly injected because, and only because, it is expensive. Legalisation would therefore cut, and possibly even eliminate, the problem of infected needles, severing the link between drugs misuse and AIDS. Again, if drugs were legal people would seek necessary help far earlier and far more openly. Again, there is at present a class of drug abuser whose experience more or less foreshadows what will be the case after legalisation; namely, the children of the rich. I am sorry to go into the class matter but it is important. Admittedly this point is anecdotal. A friend of mine in his 40s told me that 20 or so of his acquaintances, when they were young, took hard drugs. Only two of them suffered permanently after 20 years; the rest are all right. It is not drugs alone, but drugs plus deprivation that is the problem.
Again, legal drugs would be subject to quality control, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, but one cannot tell the truth too often. People would know what they were taking and they would not be killed by drugs of an unaccustomed strength or adulterated with poisons. Finally, resources not spent on enforcement would be available to finance care and treatment of those who required it. That could treble, without any extra cost to the Exchequer, the amount devoted to care of users.
Very little has been said—unexpectedly little—about the difference between different drugs. As I said, marijuana is probably the one that will be legalised first because it is the one that is most widely used and, on the whole, experience shows to be the least harmful. The Green Paper makes no distinction at all between soft and hard drugs. In that, it is not only out of touch with the facts but out of touch with the thinking in most other countries. It emerged in a recent French television programme that over 50 per cent. of the French population had tried marijuana. That is backed by the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in relation to parts of this country. The studio audience in that programme, according to my informant, exploded with laughter when some of the more lurid allegations against marijuana were mentioned.
That brings me to the important matter of educating young people on the facts about drugs. In that regard an enormous amount of care must be exercised. And in this at least the Green Paper is sensible and honest. On page 17 it admits that,
"Many drug misusers do not suffer serious illness".

749
Most official propaganda up to this date has not admitted that; but it is a fact and it is good that all facts should come out. If then, as it says on page 27, pupils continue to be taught about the harmful effects of drugs, it is important not to do that in such a way as to contradict the personal experience of those who know drug users who happen to be healthy, otherwise the campaign is totally discredited. A recent report tells of an Arsenal football star—and in order to be a football star he must be a considerable athlete—who is a cocaine addict. Drug education must cope with cases like that. As the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS puts it,
"This is an area where teachers are likely to know less than their pupils"—
and they can say that again!
The Green Paper contains a number of accounts of local successes in the war against drugs, and in the context, and temporarily, they are extremely heartening. The cleaning up of the King's Cross area is perhaps the best example. However, those examples remind me of nothing so much as the real and substantial successes of the former South African Government against the African National Congress. King Canute's courtiers, too, could probably point to areas on the seashore where rocks had temporarily dammed the incoming tide. The drugs war is similarly unwinnable. Let us hope that that is recognised internationally before too many lives are damaged, too much treasure is expended and too many objectionable fortunes are made in this counter-productive effort.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I must declare three interests. First, I am a joint secretary of the All-Party Group on Drugs Misuse, though I do not speak in that formal capacity this evening. Any views I give are my own but they stem directly from the somewhat mixed experience of sitting in on that group's deliberations for the past eight or nine years, most of which was profoundly depressing.
Secondly, I am the chairman of a drug education charity called Life Education Centres. We teach about 250,000 children in primary schools in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned, the Department for Education was unwise enough to invite me to chair the series of four conferences to be held around England in the New Year to discuss how to get drug education kick-started properly in schools where it is not already present. The noble Baroness inadvertently promoted me to the rank of an Earl, which was extremely kind of her. But, as I explained to an American colleague a couple of weeks ago in New York, I am a Baron and firmly at the bottom of the pile where I belong.
I should like to speak this evening primarily about the Green Paper. That does not in any way denigrate the fact that it is World AIDS Day today, but in the interests of economy, focus and timing, I shall have to leave that aside. The educational element in trying to do something about continuing the success we have had so far in this country is extremely important, particularly in light of
750
the rather distressing fact that the largest increase in HIV prevalence in this country is in the heterosexual population.
It is an unaccustomed experience for me, as a Cross-Bencher, with my voting record during the years of the current Conservative Administration, to stand here and be able to praise something that the Government have done, but on the whole I think that the Green Paper is remarkably good. In many ways, as other speakers have said, it is a landmark inasmuch as a great many different areas of government have got together and gone through the not inconsiderable discipline of trying to agree with one another on something. It demonstrates the value of focus and of applied and, above all, co-ordinated data collection, and in particular the application of a considerable degree of Civil Service intellect to what is a pretty intractable problem.
I would particularly like to thank by name a lady called Sue Street, who is at the head of the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit. She and her extremely capable small team have achieved more in the past nine months than governments of any political persuasion in this country for the past 30 years in terms of really getting their minds around the myriad aspects of the drug problem. We owe Sue Street and her team a considerable debt.
Secondly, it would be churlish of me to deny that both the Lord President of the Council and the Prime Minister have been a considerable force behind giving Sue Street and her team the authority to go and kick behind with the right degree of force and application.
There are three themes about which I particularly want to speak. The first is the overwhelming need for top-level co-ordination if we are to continue to make any headway in dealing with this problem. Secondly, we must be realistic in understanding the timescale of what it is we are embarking upon. Thirdly, and more specifically, there is a vital need for some very dedicated and applied training in certain areas.
Co-ordination is something we have been spectacularly bad at in the past. The level of miscomprehension and incomprehension between the different departments of state has been a joy to behold at times, but on most occasions it has been rather depressing and distressing. The ministerial sub-committee on the misuse of drugs, set up some seven or eight years ago, has made some progress but, by and large, has been fairly spectacularly unsuccessful. What it needs, and what I am glad to say it has had more recently, is, first, a fairly big-hitting chairman who carries some weight at the Cabinet table and, secondly, and critically—I come back to my praise of Sue Street and her team—some high quality, co-ordinated information from across all of the departments concerned, including a look at what is happening internationally, to help the sub-committee take some of the strategic and funding decisions which need to be taken. It would be tragic if we were to lose the considerable reservoir of knowledge built up in this rather short, eight-month period in the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit. I urge the Government to think carefully about how that can be conserved and added to.

751
I know that no decision has been taken on what the future of the unit should be, but there is a very strong case for saying that the ministerial sub-committee should have a small, dedicated, highly specialised team which looks right the way across the problem to advise it. Otherwise, we shall start falling into our previous errors, which would be a great pity.
There are all kinds of sensitive issues that still have to be dealt with at the ministerial sub-committee level: sensitive questions such as what should be the role of health education authorities; what is the exact role of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; what should be the role and funding of SCODA. Those are all quite major strategic issues which are broader than the remit of any particular department. We need a cross-curricular approach to decide how best to deal with these issues.
What Sue Street and her team have shown is, first, how much we know but, secondly, and obversely, how very little we know. One has seen that demonstrated in the range of views that we have heard today. This debate thrives on a certain amount of fact and, by and large, on a rather overwhelming residue of ignorance. It is possible for people to propound all kinds of interesting ideas. Most of us have to listen with a degree of politeness, because quite frankly we do not have enough information to know whether to laugh or to cry. All I would say is that if noble Lords wish to find out more about one or two of the remedies proposed this evening—I think in particular of the second remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNair—if they care to apply to the ISDD library to see what information it has, they will find that yes, indeed, Narconon was set up by the late Ron Hubbard. But it also demonstrates and points out the fact that Ron Hubbard was the founder of what is known as the Church of Scientology.
Lord McNair: My Lords, among his many achievements L. Ron Hubbard did not, in fact, found the Church of Scientology. What information ISDD may have about Narconon is probably very out of date. If the noble Lord would like to find out about Narconon I suggest that he goes to Narconon and sees the work it is doing.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. To do that I would need to go to the headquarters of the Church of Scientology in this country, which is located in East Grinstead. Perhaps my information is out of date but I am sure that I shall put in a suggestion to the ISDD that it gets more up-to-date information. I shall be interested to see what it has to say.
The second theme I want to talk about is the timescale. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke in some detail about the philosophy underlying what the Green Paper says in recognising that trying to focus on supply without doing something about reducing demand is ultimately self-defeating. If there is one big idea that runs through the Green Paper it is that there is no single response to trying to deal with drugs. It is no use trying to skew it too far in demand reduction and it is no use trying to skew it too far the other way in trying to choke
752
off the supply. The answer must lie somewhere in the middle. However, we must do a great deal more, rather more effectively, than we have in the past.
While tobacco is not a perfect role model for what can be achieved, if one looks at what has happened over the past 25 years to the demand reduction for tobacco products, it serves as a kind of goal or model for what one might seek to achieve in trying to make more young people in particular realise that starting to experiment with drugs is a somewhat dangerous and stupid thing to do. The reason for the reduction in tobacco consumption is not that everyone has jumped up and down and said, "No, you should not do it"; it is that a great many people now recognise that there are some facts involved in tobacco consumption to do with the real harm it does as well as the anti-social side effects. Those facts have gradually permeated the consciousness of most young people. That is not to say they will not try it, but the figures show that a great many people who start experimenting with tobacco, like me, at the age of about 14, have actually given it up by the age of 25 or 26. If we can achieve that kind of success with some of the people who are dabbling in drugs, that is a good goal to aim for.
Above all, we are embarking on a very long haul. I am making an appeal to any politicians of any party who are looking at a drugs strategy, or any element of it, to recognise that to look for short-term achievements, two-year or five-year paybacks—unless one is being highly specific about individual programmes—will ultimately be self-defeating and extremely depressing. The problem is not something which responds quickly to treatment. It takes many years to permeate the consciousness. Any party that comes in and propagates a quick fix should be treated with due disrespect.
The last point I wish to concentrate on is training. The levels of ignorance shown by some of the so-called experts who have come before the all-party drugs misuse group are quite staggering. That ranges from ministerial level, through senior departmental officials, to some of the so-called experts out in the field. Quite understandably, drugs are a very distasteful subject to a great many people. Most people do not really wish to know about the problem and the few politicians in this and the other place who have concerned themselves with the question have often done so as a direct result of their own immediate family being tragically affected by exposure to drugs. It is not a subject which most of us tend to go looking for and that is perfectly understandable.
In trying to implement some of the programmes which the Government are recommending, there is a very real need for some very careful thought about training. The trainers need to be trained. Many departmental officials need to be trained. Certainly, the officials in Ofsted who are to be charged with deciding whether or not any individual school has an effective drug education programme need to be trained how to recognise a good scheme from a mediocre or bad one. The people involved in deciding how the GEST grant should be used for training teachers also need to know enough about the different kinds of training available to be able to give guidance on what is a sensible way to

753
be trained and a less sensible way to be trained. At the moment the level of knowledge in those areas is quite low.
I would like briefly to return to what I said at the beginning about the need for co-ordination. The overwhelming theme and success of the Green Paper comes from the level of co-ordination that went into its creation. If we forget that, and if each department which is charged with doing things in the Green Paper, or in the White Paper when it ultimately appears, goes off in an individual direction, they will all end up quite a considerable distance from one another and a great deal of the good that the Green Paper has created will be dissipated.
On balance, I believe that the Government have done remarkably well thus far. In proof, as I said, I have had recent truck with officials in the Department for Education. They are all in a mild state of shock because the draft circular on drug prevention in schools, which Mrs. Shephard announced a few weeks ago, has, to the astonishment of herself, her Ministers and officials, met with almost universal approbation, a very unusual experience for officials of that department. It was an experience which initially they found rather uncomfortable but which they are now beginning to quite enjoy. I believe that the Government have made quite a good start, but there is a very long way to go. Whether the work is carried on by this Government or another, I wish them well.
6.34 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, what a debate we are having! It is certainly not what I was expecting. It has been absolutely riveting so far and we still have the speeches of the two noble Baronesses to come. We have had a lot of expertise, humour, innovative thought and some curiosity. I rise to speak mainly for myself although I speak from the Front Bench.
I have one duty to clear straightaway because I have been requested to do so by one particular noble Lord. I wish to clear the air as to where the Liberal Democrats actually stand as regards drugs because there seems to be some misunderstanding due, I believe, in some part to media excitement; namely, that the Liberal Democrat Party voted at their conference in September at Brighton not to legalise cannabis. That is quite inaccurate. What they voted for was the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the potential decriminalisation—there is a nuance there—of cannabis along with other measures to combat both drug misuse and the crime which all too often goes with it. I have done my party duty.
I stand here as one who takes a great interest in the problems which we have been discussing today. I am a vice-chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. 'It is one of the facts of parliamentary work—it goes further than that—that alcohol and drugs are treated separately in areas where they should be treated much more closely together. That has been referred to by one or two noble Lords today.
There are of course differences. Everybody knows—even the youngest of school children probably now knows—that mood changing substances have existed in
754
most societies since the beginning of history. Nothing much has changed in this country except the scale of the use of addictive substances. There is the cultural acceptance of alcohol which makes it legal to buy and consume whereas drugs are not legal to buy, consume or to trade. I have myself no particular view.; about decriminalisation, but I go along with my party in believing that the whole question needs to be examined in a much more open way in order that we can all be sure that all avenues have been discussed without a kind of confrontational attitude.
Although the Green Paper is admirable and worthy and a very good starting point, as noble Lords have said, the part which was referred to in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; namely D.3 in Annex D at the back, lets the whole paper down. It is the most absurd and disgraceful piece of logical thinking that I have come across in any document which has the authority of government in the 11 years that I have been here. It would be a disgrace to a 10 year-old to come up with reason of that kind. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at it and comment on it. I hope that she will dissociate herself from it and that someone will get rapped over the knuckles for it. That is unlikely, but we can hope.
I return to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It has been an unusual afternoon. In the 11 years I have been here I believe that he made the best—certainly Conservative—Back-Bench speech that I have heard in this House. It is probably the best Back-Bench speech that I have heard in this House on any subject. He spoke for about 28 minutes. One noble Baroness on the Front Bench was looking somewhat apprehensive, but she seemed to be cheered by the fact that we were all absolutely frozen in our seats with attention at what the noble Lord was saying. I felt as though I were a late 18th century MP in the House of Commons when Charles James Fox was speaking. He spoke for a great deal longer than the noble Lord. When Charles James Fox gave sign that he might be flagging after several hours, Members shouted "Hear him! Hear him!" in order to keep him speaking. I felt like emulating that great Whig orator.
I turn to alcohol for a moment. Without doubt alcohol is today the most dangerous drug in our society. It creates more death, more illness, more absenteeism and is responsible for more wife-battering, more child abuse and more traffic accidents. You name it, alcohol is responsible for it. I have been trying for many years to change the way in which alcohol is discussed in our society, but it is impossible. We all know why—it is because too many vested interests are involved. I should like alcohol to be discussed in the same dispassionate and objective way as we are attempting to discuss the drugs problem. That is not to say that I want drugs to be regarded in the same way as alcohol. I do not agree with those noble Lords who have said that drugs are not harmful in society. I think that drugs are extremely harmful. In fact, I object to the term "drug misuse". I should prefer to use the phrase "drug use" wherever the term "drug misuse" is used.
I do not believe that there can be sensible drinking. In fact, I have tangled with the chairman of the Portman Group, Dr. Rae, on that subject. I do not believe that

755
such a thing as sensible drinking exists. It is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, I do not believe that there can be any "sensible" use of drugs. The aim of all of us should be to reduce the use of drugs, particularly among the young.
When people smoke cannabis or take heroin, opiates or any of the prescription drugs, they generally do not go out and behave rowdily on a Saturday night or assault women, although some of the drugs that are now available, particularly crack, have an association with sexual activity, but I shall not go into that.
I go along with the document's aims. There is nothing terribly original in it, but why should there be? It is meant to stimulate discussion, thought and suggestions before a White Paper comes out. Apart from the particular offending piece to which I have already referred, I am quite sure from the general tone of the Green Paper that we shall be able to get together with Government to improve our approach and to move closer to finding a solution to a lot of the problems. I direct anyone who doubts whether there is a problem to the figures that were quoted about the Scottish experience in yesterday's Guardian. Scotland's experience is not all that different from ours except that some drugs are more popular there than here. According to a recent in-depth survey of men aged between 20 and 24, 44 per cent. have taken or are taking drugs, and 33 per cent. of females between the ages of 16 and 19 are doing likewise. That in itself indicates that there is a serious problem.
I have a number of children and I have spent many years with my fingers crossed. So far I have been lucky, as far as I know. I am quite sure that my elder children have tried some drug or another at some time. They have all attended schools where there have been well-known scandals with drugs. Indeed, one attended the school of which the head was the aforesaid Dr. Rae before he joined the Portman Group. He would not deny that there was a problem there. Happily, when my son was at Westminster he was not involved in that. I sometimes think that because the school had such a bookish attitude towards sport, he rebelled against that and did a lot of athletic things in order to upset Dr. Rae and the masters. That did him no harm and he is a healthy, youngish man of 31 today.
On the subject of education, I have intervened on several occasions at my children's schools to complain bitterly about the quality of their drug and alcohol advice. The main problem is always that the wrong people are talking about it. They do not have either the respect or the interest of the children. A school that my daughter attended—unfortunately for a shortish period 'only because it closed due to lack of funds—had very good people coming in to talk about drugs. They were all ex-addicts who had a teaching gift. Wherever possible, people who have a gift for teaching and who have been through the harrowing experience of drug addiction or alcoholism should be encouraged to come into schools. Use should be made of them because many are extremely willing to help.
756
Nothing is more cheering than to see successful education. Along with a number of other noble Lords, I am a patron of an East End charity for the "re-education" of homeless people who have reached the end of the road. They have had appalling lives and have lost everything. That re-education, which is an expensive and long process, has had extraordinary results. It is most encouraging to see someone's life being turned round. It can be done, but it is expensive and painstaking and requires a lot of dedication. Exactly the same thing will have to happen in schools and universities as regards drugs.
Turning to the social aspect, many people who are lucky enough to have escaped any family problem or despair over drugs think that it is something that will never happen to them. That applies particularly to people in more affluent circumstances. I know of two men, both of whom were exceptional athletes, who became crack addicts. One was a multi-millionaire who made a large fortune in the 1970s. He lost everything as a result of his cocaine and crack habit. He is now undergoing treatment. As a matter of fact, he got into drugs through his addiction to sex. It was not a drug addiction originally. He had a problem with sex and went to prostitutes and call girls who introduced him to drugs. That is not an uncommon series of events when such fast-acting, extremely powerful and dangerous drugs are involved. If we are to teach about drugs, it is necessary to look at their range of ill effects throughout the whole of society. We should not be talking only about children and prisoners. Everybody is vulnerable for one reason or another. That is why we need to know more about it. We need to be more open and less confrontational in the way in which we discuss drugs.
On law enforcement, it is admitted in the United States that about 10 per cent. of the drugs coming on to the market are intercepted. But that leaves 90 per cent. unintercepted. The size of the problem is obvious. I have no reason to think that our enforcement or our success in terms of Customs and the police is any better. All praise to the police and Customs officers who had such a large cannabis haul recently. However, I must ask whether it will really make a great deal of difference if we have a number of such cannabis hauls. As many noble Lords have said, the police and Customs are fighting a losing battle.
I do not want to go on any longer. We have had a wonderful debate and I am still thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. All of us should read what he said carefully. He has brought a lot of expertise and experience to the subject, and has taken a fresh look at a lot of the things about which we may have made some wrong assumptions. I hope that the Government, too, will read his words.
I should like to say something about a matter that is not in the Green Paper. Indeed, perhaps it should not be there. What is the cause of the escalating drug use? I do not know the answer, but I suggest that one reason might be the shocking provision of housing in this country, the lack of a proper provision of education in deprived areas and the lack of something for young people to do. We all know what happens if we leave young people to their own devices. It happened to me

757
at one stage. I was left pretty well unattended and got into what seemed to be the most awful trouble. However, I came from a generation which, when I look back, was generally rather innocent. We thought that stealing apples was a dangerous activity, so how can I talk to my young and pontificate about drugs? Generally, I think that it is a question of the environment in which people live and grow. We need better housing and better education in this country. We need to take a serious look at the employment of young people.
Our problems are not yet on the level of the French. There is absolutely no disagreement about the fact that the French have two major problems: one is unemployment and the other is AIDS. I will not go into AIDS because that is a subject of which I know very little, but I have been very interested to hear other noble Lords in this debate. Perhaps I may just say that it has been a wonderful debate. I have enjoyed it enormously. I have learnt a lot and I hope to learn even more in the two remaining speeches that we are going to hear. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the White Paper.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, this could have been a depressing debate but I do not think that it has been. From all sides of the House there have been indications that discussion on how to deal with the problem is at last beginning to expand beyond current thinking, current wisdom and attempts at solutions which have not worked. There is no doubt at all—no speaker has suggested otherwise—that we are currently losing the drugs battle. A number of speakers have suggested that it is one which cannot be won. A wider variety of drugs than ever before is readily available to our young people and indeed to anyone else who takes the trouble to look for them. There is a steady and alarming increase in the number of registered addicts, many of them HIV-positive or suffering from AIDS.
Drugs are now, I understand, the major single contributing factor to the crime figures. And the position is worsening, not improving. The problem is not just ours; it is world wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said. No one has yet found the right answer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate and I want at the outset from these Benches to welcome the consultation document. I do so with particular and real enthusiasm in one important respect. Its general approach, if different government departments, particularly the Home Office, Education and Health, are at last to adopt a joint approach, is one that we on this side of the House applaud. If achieved, that will be a major advance because, too often and in too many ways, some of which I shall come to shortly, the fact that the Home Office sees drug users as criminals hampers, stifles and even stamps on initiatives in medical practice and treatment 'generally which the Department of Health, seeing drug users primarily as patients, should be trying but feels that it cannot try. To overcome that fundamental difference of approach would, I believe, lead to a great deal being achieved.
My criticism and my fear about the paper is that it is couched in language and indeed clings to many of the approaches which have been tried and have not
758
succeeded. It in a sense reinforces the usual conventions and the usual methods as being effectively the right approach and one from which we should not even think of deviating. If we are to make any real progress in this battle we have to dare to think the unthinkable. We have to tackle the problem from the realities in 1994 and not from wishful thinking.
We would all of us wish to think it possible to stop, or virtually stop, all illegal drugs entering Britain. But it is not possible. We would all of us wish to see those who use drugs weaned off them. But some of them cannot be and never will be, or at least not in the foreseeable future. All of us, especially those with children, would like to see drugs cleared from our schools, from the streets and from the clubs that our children in particular frequent. But the reality is that those drugs are there; they are entrenched; and they are likely to remain there in the foreseeable future. We have to tackle that reality with realism.
I hope that the consultation period will not in the end prove to be a simple rejigging of old policies which have not met the problem. I hope that we can use it as an opportunity to look at radical alternatives and to innovate instead of taking the safe routes yet again. I simply ask this: can we in fact worsen the position if we do? I suggest that we cannot.
Many noble Lords have spoken from a background of great experience, particularly in relation to education, treatment and health. My background is that of a criminal lawyer. The matters I should like to raise, I hope briefly, arise from direct and recent experiences I have had in this area which fall largely within the province of the Home Office, in relation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is, I understand, to reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred to the importation of heroin and cocaine, which of course are not produced here. We have not managed to find any satisfactory way of stopping large quantities of those drugs being illegally imported. The drugs come here because there is a lucrative market for them; that makes it worth the risk being taken by the smugglers. The prison sentences now being imposed for drugs offences in reality exceed those served for murder.
The drug trafficking provisions passed through this House in strengthened form relatively recently mean that those who are caught can be stripped effectively of all their assets. But they have not stopped consignments being sent and have not stopped them getting through. It is clear that unless demand is cut a supply will continue to come. Surely we must tackle both the supply and the demand. As to supply, am I, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who mentioned it, alone in feeling alarm at the announcement made yesterday that out of what I understand from the consultative document are some 800 specialist investigation staff in Customs and Excise, it is proposed over the next five years that some 550 anti-smuggling officers should lose their jobs?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I intervene to say that I was worried about that too?
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is quite correct. She too referred to the matter. I wonder, in the light of the concern voiced from

759
various sides of the House, whether the noble Baroness who is to reply will tell us why that reduction is proposed at this time. How is the vigilance of those officers to be replaced? May I also ask the noble Minister for urgent reassurance that the ability of Customs and Excise to detect and intercept consignments of dangerous drugs will not be reduced by the cutbacks?
I shall come back, if I may, to the question of demand. But a second matter of great concern is what is taking place in our prisons in relation to drugs. Three times in the last six weeks three different prisoners in three different prisons—one in Oxfordshire, one in Buckinghamshire and one in London—have told me that drugs are more readily available to them in prison than they were outside. I note that the consultative document refers to research being done and proposed to be done into the extent of drug misuse in prison. I am confident from what I have been told repeatedly that the end result of that work will be the conclusion that misuse is rampant.
I ask your Lordships for a moment to dare to think the unthinkable and to consider the options. They fall into two categories. We could, on the one hand, look at countries such as Hong Kong which, in relation to drug offenders in particular, have, with very considerable success, isolated them in a single prison. Visiting takes place through a screen so that drugs cannot be handed over. There is routine daily urine testing, and there are proper and comprehensive treatment facilities available within prison and supervision on release which would be the envy, I think, of the probation service here. Checking on curfews takes place, often several times during the course of a night. The treatment has had a measure of success and, certainly, in some cases has reduced, if not eliminated, the taking of drugs in prison.
Such measures may not be acceptable here; indeed, they may be impractical here. If that is right and if we are accepting that some drugs will be available to people within our prisons, surely the time has come to ensure that clean needles and a means of sterilisation such as bleach are available to prisoners in the inevitable circumstances of their making use of drugs and possibly injecting.
We must also surely ensure, particularly if we are taking the trouble to test people's urine to see whether they are taking drugs, that there are facilities in every prison, and not just a selection of them, where help, advice and treatment can be provided while in prison and after release. The present position in relation to drug misuse in our prisons is a scandal. I am desperately concerned that young people especially who are sent to prison should not come out with a newly acquired drug habit, and possibly HIV, as well as a criminal record. I hope that urgent action can be taken about that at the earliest possible date.
The next matter that concerns me greatly is that of needles and needle exchanges. There can be no doubt that the setting up of needle exchanges has been a great benefit not just in assisting towards a reduction in the transfer of HIV and AIDS but in affording a means of providing existing addicts with a source of advice and
760
help. But it would be wrong to overlook the fact that there are drawbacks in relation to certain of the needle exchanges. In some places, addicts have tended to congregate, to the annoyance of local residents; drug dealing has taken place in or near the premises; and, perhaps even more commonly, there is the borrowing and repaying of drugs which have been lent by one addict to another.
Those who need to be removed from the drug culture are sometimes pushed back into it by the need to go along to needle exchanges to obtain clean needles. I know of one GP who advises his drug addict patients not to go near one of London's largest needle exchanges for that reason. Other ways must be found, and readily found, to enable addicts to obtain quantities of clean needles which will prevent the passing and transmission of HIV without contact with other users.
I come back to the issue of demand, as I said I would. I had recently the experience as a barrister of appearing in front of a Home Office misuse of drugs tribunal, representing a doctor accused of irresponsible prescribing. It would be wholly wrong for me to make any comment about the specific case as the tribunal has yet to report to the Home Secretary. A number of disturbing features emerged from the evidence that I heard during the course of that hearing. First—this applies to London but may apply elsewhere, I do not know—registered addicts find it hard to discover GPs who are prepared to take them on and prescribe for them. It is virtually impossible for them to find a GP who is prepared to prescribe any quantity of injectable drugs or at the level to which hardened addicts have become accustomed.
One can readily understand the reasons. Addicts are often difficult patients. They may be devious, manipulative, and dishonest. They are certainly demanding. But what concerns me greatly is that GPs are, I believe, frightened of taking on drug addicts, because they fear the attention of the Home Office drugs inspectorate. It is easier to send addicts away. Few doctors in London will take them on, and addicts are sometimes driven into the private sector.
There are no published limits of what quantities of drugs, such as methadone, a GP may prescribe or what combinations of drugs a GP may or may not prescribe. There are guidelines. The decision is left to the individual GP's clinical judgment. Faced with a long-term heroin addict, such a doctor finds himself in an impossible position. His clinical judgment may tell him that the addict before him requires a high level of prescription or a combination. The consultative document draws attention to the fact that increasing numbers of addicts are now coming to light who are addicted to a range of drugs—not just opiates but opiates, benzodiazepines and often amphetamines, and sometimes all three.
If the GP fails to prescribe either a combination or at a level which the addict in his judgment requires he knows that the addict will merely supplement whatever prescription he gives by going to the black market and buying often impure drugs. That will bring him back with a range of health problems. What is more, the addict is likely to turn to crime as a means of funding

761
his purchase of black market drugs. If the GP prescribes as he thinks right, he may well see the addict's health improve. In some instances there is not merely health improvement but the ability to hold down a job, to form stable family relationships, and to be removed from the drug scene and the necessity to become involved in crime. The GP then attracts inevitably the attention of the Home Office drugs inspectorate whose staff is often not medically qualified who tell him that he must stop prescribing in that way.
If the GP remains adamant that he will prescribe in accordance with his clinical judgment, he may well face a Home Office tribunal with serious consequences for his career. So what is a GP to do? And what is to be done about the gap, as it seems to me, in the provision of treatment for addicts at that basic level? If there are to be limits as to what a GP may properly prescribe, surely they should be set out.
If it is felt that specialists are the only people who should be prescribing in that way and dealing with such addicts, then that specialist help must be available. Amphetamine is perhaps the largest growing addiction at the moment. Huge quantities of amphetamine are available readily and cheaply on the street, much of it seriously adulterated. There are often fatal consequences for the health of those who take it. To find a doctor—a specialist or otherwise—in central London, who is prepared to continue to prescribe clean amphetamine for an addict seriously addicted in that way is difficult if not impossible. Every patient whom a GP turns away, every patient for whom he prescribes less than the patient needs to keep him straight, is a customer for the black market and an incentive for the smuggler and drug dealer to increase their trade.
What I have learnt in the past year from the evidence I have heard before tribunals is no more than other noble Lords have spoken of this evening. Every such patient who is sent back onto the black market is put at serious health risk. It may be abscesses; it may be the consequences of unsafe injecting practices; it may be as serious as the risk of HIV. What is the doctor to do? As a GP said to me recently, "What am I to do when a prostitute who is HIV-positive and a drug addict comes to me and wants a high level of drugs prescribing for her? If I do not give her the drugs she needs, she resorts to prostitution to pay for black market drugs, and she spreads her infection. If I do, I am likely to face a Home Office drugs inspector telling me that I have done wrong and threatening me with the consequences if I do not stop."
The role of the general practitioner in the treatment of drug addicts needs proper examination. Our general practitioners must know the scope of what they may or may not do. The present uncertainty is driving many addicts onto the black market and hence into crime in order to pay for their drugs. Doctors do not know what they can do and are unwilling to take the risk. Those same patients return to the health service with serious problems.
I am anxious that this is one way in which we should examine the question of how we try to reduce demand. It may be that we should be examining realistic prescribing either by general practitioners or by
762
specialists and specialist units. As was indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I have no doubt that education is one way forward. However, as other noble Lords said, it must be of the right kind.
Treatment was referred to by a number of noble Lords. It was perhaps the most optimistic part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and one that I would readily endorse, in particular in the voluntary sector through organisations such as Phoenix House. That organisation was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I too have had some experience of it. Invaluable work is being done in providing methods of approach and treatment which are not necessarily the convention or the norm and which may not be capable of being provided by the National Health Service. I welcome the way in which the consultative document appears to recognise their role. However, I should have liked to have seen them given higher priority in the order of events.
During many of the hottest days of July this year I sat listening to what I can describe only as "hard core" drug addicts talking about their life histories. They were in their thirties and forties, which means that they came after the Rolleston Committee in the 1960s changed our approach to the way in which we prescribe to addicts. All have been through not only one drug rehabilitation or treatment scheme but perhaps as many as six or seven. Finally, they had all broken down. Some were optimistic that there might come a time when they were able to abstain from drugs. Some were resigned to never being able to do so. At present such people are relatively small in number. They are people who, unless doctors are prepared to prescribe for them—and that requires a degree of considerable bravery—have no future other than the black market and no means of paying for the treatment they need other than by resorting to crime. If in 10, 20 or 30 years' time we cannot provide for people in that category there will be an explosion in the number of others like them. They were at the forefront of those who started to take heroin and then moved on to methadone.
Various noble Lords referred to methadone maintenance programmes. It is becoming increasingly clear that a substantial body of medical opinion is coming to believe that methadone was and is more harmful than heroin which it was introduced to replace. Certainly, there is a widespread view among addicts that it is much harder to come off. I am glad to hear that the Government are looking at pilot schemes for long-term maintenance methadone but I am concerned that at this stage they have gone only as far as contemplating the possibility of long-term oral methadone.
It is clear that many of the addicts who gave evidence in the summer were addicted to the needle as much as to the drug. Some of them explained in terms that I had never previously understood why they failed to respond to treatment programmes. It was the view of all of them that the best chance for a long-term user eventually to stop taking drugs was to get into a state of good health. That can probably be done only if a doctor is sufficiently understanding to provide the addict with a supply of

763
drugs which will enable that person to put on weight, to master his personal life, to get himself a job and to "get your life together", as they put it.
If that person is asked to reduce quickly or abruptly he will find himself having to face the reality of the kind of person he has become—a person who often has lied, cheated and deceived those closest to him. More than anything else, it is the pressure of facing up to that which drives a person back to the drugs; he cannot face the reality. Where there are doctors who believe that there is some merit in a long-term methadone maintenance programme—whether it is injectable, oral or trying to reduce the injectable element, which is surely desirable—the long-term results are amazing. Often there appears to come a point when even the hardest addict becomes bored—that is a curious word to use—with taking the drugs; bored with going out and obtaining them; and bored with the degrading procedures involved. However, it is abundantly clear that one cannot force people to come off drugs before they are ready. That is one of the mistakes that our present programme is making and it is one of the reasons why there are so many instances of failure. There are so few success stories even in the specialist units.
We must be frank about the fact that our present policies have failed those who are currently addicted. What troubles me is that they have also failed the public. We are not bringing about any reduction in drug-related crime, any reduction in wrecked lives or any substantial reduction in the spread of HIV through drug taking. We owe it not only to addicts but perhaps even more to the public whose ordinary lives are affected by addicts, in particular on the receiving end of crime, to explore every avenue that is open to us. The consultation process could provide us with that chance.
As I said at the outset, I am discouraged by what appears to be a conventional approach to the problem. However, I am greatly encouraged by what has been said by noble Lords on all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that we should look for no single response. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that no tools or weapons should be neglected. I hope that in reply the Minister will say that the debate can be extended in the period between the publication of the Green Paper and the White Paper and that we can look further at proper long-term methadone maintenance, where that is appropriate. I hope too that we can examine the issues that have been raised by other noble Lords and look more seriously at the possibility of future legalisation of some of the drugs.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, the debate has been interesting, at times sensitive and certainly worthwhile. The Green Paper, Tackling Drugs Together, is a consultative document. It invites comments on all aspects of the proposed strategy. I know that those with responsibility for collating and considering comments will study with particular interest what has been said
764
during the course of the debate. It is also worth noting that the paper has been generally welcomed, not least today by noble Lords.
As I said, the Green Paper is a consultative document. The Government welcome comments from those involved in organisations dealing with drug issues and from the community at large. It is vital to ensure that we develop a strategy which commands maximum support. Subject to the views expressed, the strategy will be published in Spring 1995. It will not be possible in the time available to me to address all of the points raised in the course of the debate, but I will do my best to address many of them.
I had intended on behalf of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to make reference to the precipitate ennoblement of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, to an earldom! He mentioned a conversation he had with an American in which the noble Lord was described as being at the bottom of the pile. That reminded me of a conversation I had with my daughter when I knew I was coming to this august place. She said to me, "Did you know, mother, you will be the lowest form of nobility"?
There has been much said about the conflict between enforcement and treatment. I certainly wish to address that point. A number of noble Lords have alluded to what they perceive to be a conflict between law enforcement on the one hand and education and treatment on the other. My noble friend Lord Mancroft spoke of either controlling the supply of drugs or the demand. The Green Paper makes clear that the Government give an overarching commitment to doing both. The paper makes it clear that we have no intention of letting up on law enforcement but also recognises that there should be a new emphasis on prevention and education. I believe that this comprehensive approach will ensure progress in meeting the aims of the Green Paper.
I take one specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in this respect. I can assure all noble Lords that the Green Paper proposals give the police every flexibility and encouragement to participate in local, multi-agency partnerships such as education and prevention initiatives. Many police forces are already involved in arrest referral schemes to refer drug misusers to appropriate treatment services and other similar activities.
One option the Government have ruled out is the legalisation or decriminalisation of any currently banned drug. The arguments of supporters of legalisation often centre narrowly and misleadingly on the issue of drugs and criminality. It is argued that because drug misuse involves criminal activities drug use is driven underground, prices are driven up and the illicit market thrives, together with drug related crime. Those in favour of legalisation say that if one removes drugs from the criminal law, the economic base of the traffickers will be undermined, drug taking would be less risky and therefore less attractive, prices would fall and drug-related crime would drop. But is it remotely possible that cause and effect would fall so neatly into place in real life? For a start, if the price of drugs were to fall, consumption is likely to rise. If one just looks at

765
legalisation simply from the point of view of health, the withdrawal of legal controls would be likely to have disastrous consequences. As Professor Griffith Edwards of the National Addiction Centre has pointed out, access to drugs has been proved significantly to encourage use of drugs. With legalisation therefore the number of people addicted to all kinds of drugs will be likely to increase, and with this increase in availability children and young people will inevitably be put at greater risk.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said,
"This is not simply a moral issue. It is also about the kind of society we want for our children. I do not want a society where it is acceptable to be stoned on drugs or where we pop into the cannabis shop to get the evening supply".
Some people find the idea of legalisation more attractive when confined to removing controls from cannabis and the so-called soft drugs, but that solution too is flawed. Just because making something illegal encourages a black market is not an argument for legalisation. The criminal law sends important signals about what society does and does not see as acceptable and safe behaviour. Claims are made that there is little if any danger in consuming cannabis or soft drugs and of course not everyone who misuses cannabis goes on to become a heroin addict. But it is, however, frequently the case that those on hard drugs started life taking soft drugs. We should not underestimate or disregard the dangers posed by the drug. Research has suggested that there is the possibility of long-term physical or psychological harm among heavy cannabis users and the short-term effects such as light-headedness and lack of concentration are at least as serious in their implications for road safety or safety at work.
One or two countries have responded to the problem of drug misuse by turning a blind eye to the possession of drugs such as cannabis while maintaining a tough line on heroin and the other so-called hard drugs. While this may sound attractive to some, we believe that such a policy is fatally flawed. In particular it sends out a confused message to the young and to the impressionable and suggests that drugs are not harmful. Any country which flirts with this approach risks becoming a prime attraction for drug takers. The traffickers quickly move in to meet the demands for other and more dangerous drugs which in turn provides a market for surrounding countries. Let us not forget that we would be failing to honour our international obligations if we were to legalise drugs. Fortunately there is little or no support for this in the international community. Let me make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of legalising any currently banned drug.
We are also taking steps to deal with the misuse of drugs in prisons. Drug taking in prison can lead to violence, intimidation and of course disorder. This unnecessary misery can only be tackled head-on. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to not being able to eliminate it completely. Of course we will never totally eliminate drugs from prisons but we are determined to do what we can to minimise the taking of drugs in prisons. The first step will be the introduction of mandatory drug testing. It will be one of the largest drug testing programmes ever seen in this country with
766
the random testing of up to 60,000 prisoners each year across the prison system. There will also be targeted testing of all known drug users. This will be linked to the introduction of new prison rules. Any prisoner testing positive or who refuses the test will be liable to disciplinary action which could result in 28 added days confinement or loss of privileges or indeed loss of earnings.
The prison service is, however, committed to providing help to prisoners who have misused—I think that was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—or are at risk of misusing drugs and to working with agencies in the community to provide continuity of help on release. I believe that was another point made by the noble Baroness. As part of the new strategy the range of drug treatment and education programmes in prison will be expanded. A series of new drug treatment programmes will be implemented in prisons during 1995 and the efficacy of those programmes will be monitored to ensure that the most appropriate treatments are available to meet the demands of different levels and types of drug misuse. Existing programmes will also be monitored and evaluated.
One of the particular strengths of the drug prevention initiative has been its ability to support a wide range of different treatments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in an excellent speech, referred to the review of the Health Education Authority. That review is complete and it is with Ministers at the moment. I understand that an announcement will be made as soon as possible. However, I must say that the Health Education Authority does not of course deliver public education on drugs; that is for the Department of Health. On both HIV issues and drug misuse issues, we will encourage a range of agencies and expertise to contribute to all prevention programmes. It is frequently most effective to use experience close to the people, targeted to produce campaigns in that work.
The noble Baroness also talked about our commitment to the global effort. As a result of the recent Budget, the Government will, for the first time, give £2 million towards international research on HIV, and that is in addition to the £40 million given through the World Health Organisation's global programme, and to 15 African and Caribbean countries for prevention since the late 1980s.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, made reference to sex education in schools. She will know that she and I did battle on this over a number of hours across the Dispatch Box on a previous occasion. We have made sex education a compulsory subject—that is new—across the curriculum, not the national curriculum as the noble Baroness knows. We have provided substantial guidance. I understand that it has been welcomed and is helpful. There is now more information. It is objective information, and it is certainly more effective. As a result, we expect sex education to be more effective.
Every school must have a sex education policy. It must be discussed with parents. I believe that that is right. Information to parents will be better. There will be open discussion about the materials used. And, of

767
course, it will all be subject to inspection, which will address the quality of the sex education. That is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said something with which I shall personally take issue. He said that we should not be judgmental on these issues. I think that education has been non-judgmental for too long. I believe that we have to be judgmental. All of us who are concerned with young people have to take our courage in both hands and have a view about what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral and what is desirable and undesirable behaviour. Without that, how are children to make sense of what is being said to them in the educational programmes?
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said—and I hope that I have not misinterpreted him—that drug abuse affects no one but the drug abuser. I disagree with that, too. Drug abusers destroy relationships between parents and their children, between husbands and wives and often between mothers and their babies yet to be born. I am afraid that the noble Lord could not be more wrong in what he said.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that a large part of the harm caused to families of drug abusers is not necessarily caused by the drug itself but arises from the lifestyle that drug addicts have to lead in order to finance their habit? That leads to poverty, loss of home and inability to work. They are in a vicious circle. It is not necessarily the substance itself which causes the problems.
I have known a number of people who have been able to carry on a perfectly normal family life and hold a responsible job provided their drug has been prescribed, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, in a clean way at an adequate dose.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is so much practical evidence that somebody under the influence of drugs does not behave normally. That abnormal behaviour is seriously distressing, both mentally and physically, to families, relatives and people around addicts. The point was made in passing of the difficulty which doctors face when they take drug addicts onto their books. One of the problems is the behaviour of drug addicts in surgery waiting rooms. The behaviour of drug addicts has a serious impact on the people around them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to the role of the voluntary sector. I should like to think that the role of the voluntary sector is implicit in much of what is contained in the Green Paper. The voluntary sector plays a vital role in prevention and education as well as in treatment and rehabilitation. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has already mentioned some examples. There are so many others, but there is not time to enumerate them. I do not underestimate the role of the voluntary sector. We value it greatly. I am chairman of the Ministerial Group on the Voluntary Sector. I know that there is much that can be contributed by the community in that way.
768
The noble Baroness also raised the fact that the voluntary sector was not included in the Green Paper consultative committee. We are open to suggestions for altering the proposed membership of the drug action teams. The key principle to bear in mind is that the teams must be small, manageable in size, and members must be serious players who can influence the relevant policy and resource decisions of their respective organisations.
The noble Baroness went on to talk about resources in relation to the Green Paper. Over £500 million was spent in the United Kingdom and internationally last year in tackling drug misuse. The strategy focuses those resources clearly on explicit aims, objectives and priorities which all departments have agreed. It is a matter of making the most effective use of existing resources and realigning priorities in line with the aims of the strategy. We are confident that we are making available the necessary resources to do what we propose in the Green Paper.
Drug education in schools was also mentioned. Drug education in schools is covered in science lessons as part of the national curriculum. It may also form part of personal, social and health education. It is important that it is placed within the context of developing healthy lifestyles and of other substance misuse. The Department for Education has recently issued guidance for teachers for consultation. It includes advice on principles and practices to be adopted, the use of outside speakers, parental involvement and materials to be used. It reaffirms the importance of involving school governors in developing drug education policies as well as recognising how sensitive the issue is.
The Department for Education also intends to support up to 10 substantial innovative projects in drug education which will help to inform good practice in this area. I cannot remember which noble Lord referred disparagingly to the 10 innovative projects, but a number of noble Lords said, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in the most recent speech, that there will not be one answer to the problem. I believe that we should try a range of interesting ideas and leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions in this respect.
A number of noble Lords referred to the concept of harm minimisation, to use the jargon. The aim of services for drug misusers should be to help people to stop taking drugs. For some misusers, however, abstinence must be a long-term goal with intermediate stages. The Green Paper does not rely on the terms "harm reduction" or "harm minimisation" because in England those terms have become loaded with confusion and dogmatic debate. What is needed is less extremist argument and more information on what works. That is why the Department of Health is commissioning pilot studies for structured methadone maintenance programmes which will offer a clear route to abstinence for those who are ready to take it. In preventive work with young people our clear objective is to discourage them from taking drugs. But the Government also attach importance to the availability of early intervention services for those who choose to take risks and need help with the consequences.

769
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was concerned about young people rebelling against messages. I do not underestimate the harmful effects of smoking and the misuse of alcohol. The Government are concerned to make young people aware of the harmful effects of smoking and to discourage the habit. We are also concerned to encourage sensible drinking—and I have to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that I believe that there is such a thing as sensible drinking; I indulge in it occasionally—and to reduce alcohol misuse.
The draft circular on drug prevention in schools issued for consultation by the Department for Education, covers tobacco, alcohol and volatile substance misuse as well as illegal drug misuse wherever they raise common issues for schools. I fully accept that in putting messages across to young people we must take account of how they view the problem. We must recognise that many do not see drug misuse as a problem at all. We have to acknowledge that for some young people drug taking may appear exciting. For others it is the thing to do because others are taking drugs. Our message is: know the facts about drugs, be wise to the real dangers and risks, and make the smart decision not to take drugs.
We need to help young people develop the skills to resist peer pressure to take drugs, in the context of developing healthy lifestyles. It is also important to communicate to young people that there are places to go for advice and help, and in confidence.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft referred to the Home Office drugs prevention initiative. He referred to what he regards as the ineffectiveness of the Home Office drug prevention initiative in view of the fact that drug misuse has increased in the four years since the initiative was introduced. Prevention initiatives, especially educational programmes, are long-term investments. The point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. All the work supported by the initiative's local teams is monitored and evaluated. The drugs prevention initiative is pulling together the lessons learned to produce good practice guidance for use all over the country. The first route to that programme should be evaluated and circulated next year.
On the subject of legalisation, my noble friend has made his views known on a number of occasions. To destroy the black market in the way he suggests would be to make available all the drugs currently misused—not only cannabis, amphetamines and ecstasy, but heroin, cocaine and crack—on demand, at a price lower than the traffickers' who would assuredly fill the gaps. I cannot agree that that is the right way forward. Think of the health problems that we would have to face, my Lords.
My noble friend also made reference to drug education in schools, much of which I have touched on. However, I welcome the interesting points made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft on how to persuade young people not to misuse drugs. I do not share his pessimism on the prospect of success, but I welcome his confirmation that we should try to change young people's attitudes. We recognise that young people often know more about drugs than their parents or teachers. Simply telling them that they are wrong to take drugs
770
will not work. It is not enough. We have to recognise that young people are knowledgeable and that they like to rebel. Messages in schools and in the wider community must be directed at undermining young people's views that drug misuse is acceptable and not harmful. The fact that drug misuse is harmful and can destroy their health and their prospects is an important message.
My noble friend also referred to the Government taking account of results of an examination of what works in the methadone treatment. As part of the effectiveness review, there will be a major research study looking at the effectiveness of treatment for up to 1,000 clients receiving treatment, including people receiving methadone. The results will be considered by the Department of Health. One of the tasks identified for the Department of Health in year two of the strategy is to ensure that cost-effective and appropriate services are available to drug misusers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was concerned about crack. She asked what the Government will do about crack. The Department of Health's task force will be commissioning a study to look specifically at what treatment is available for people who use crack cocaine, and what works. Its recommendations on how such services should be provided in future will form part of its report to Ministers.
Much was made of the review of the Customs officers. A number of figures have been bandied around in the course of the debate. Let me assure your Lordships that the outcome of the fundamental expenditure review will not detract from the effectiveness of the Customs' response to drug smuggling. The proposals are designed to enhance and develop existing strategies to provide greater flexibility and better targeting for Customs operations against drug smuggling. The review builds upon successful enforcement techniques established over recent years, notably since the abolition of internal borders with the completion of the single market in 1993. The review recommends enhanced targeting and matching resources to areas of highest risk to maximise the incidence of drug seizures. There will be a continuous Customs presence at locations where the highest risks exist, coupled with the flexible use of mobile anti-smuggling teams. That will provide a swift response across the UK to identify threats as well as providing a highly visible and unpredictable deterrent.
It has been found that Customs objectives could be achieved through a net reduction of 242—the figure is not 800—anti-smuggling posts, out of more than 4,000. However, intelligence activity will be enhanced by the creation of 50 new posts in investigation or intelligence work using posts redeployed from other locations. There will be no Customs-free airports or ports in the UK. There is no evidence to suggest that that flexible, selective and targeted approach has adversely affected the effectiveness of enforcement activity. Indeed, Customs' results prove otherwise. Seizure values increased from £244 million in 1990 to over £500 million in both 1992 and 1993. In 1992, 47 major drug

771
smuggling organisations were dismantled, and 69 in 1993, a rise of 28 per cent. In the current year the figures are looking even better.
There is no question of Customs being left with insufficient anti-smuggling resources to combat illegal importation of drugs, firearms or any other dangerous item or product. There appears to be success in using intelligence rather than relying on ad hoc random inspection of goods on entry into the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was concerned about the insurance industry. The Government understand that all members of the Association of British Insurers have accepted the change in policy, and that the vast majority will introduce the changes to the questionnaire by the end of this year. We very much welcome that. I have no doubt that my noble friend will be vigilant in ensuring that that happens.
With regard to Scottish Provident, we have not seen the wording of each society's form. I am happy to write to my noble friend about the specific case to which she referred.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred to the Narconon programme. The purchase of services for the treatment of drugs misusers is for local and health authorities to decide for themselves based on the assessment of the needs of an individual. Therefore if those authorities can be persuaded that it is effective treatment, it must be a matter for them to consider purchasing into it.
The future of the central drugs co-ordination unit was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. During the next few months Ministers will be considering proposals for monitoring implementation of the strategy and as regards how a national co-ordination can be ensured. That will include consideration of a continuing role for the central drugs co-ordination unit. The noble Lord made some interesting and constructive suggestions in relation to education programmes. In particular he commented about the importance of training and the training of trainers. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, who indeed is aware of the debate, will note and take account of the references that he made to Ofsted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made reference to GPs. Many doctors choose to prescribe for their addict patients, often in a shared care arrangement with a specialist agency. That is, frankly, the preferred model of care set out in the clinical guidelines to which the noble Baroness referred. Guidelines give advice to doctors on how to establish appropriate prescribing levels from gradual withdrawal programmes to the longer-term maintenance programmes. The Green Paper recognises that general practitioners have the same responsibility to provide general medical care to drug misusers as to any other patients. The Department of Health will review the arrangements for shared care of drug misusers. It will also consider ways to ensure that an adequate number of general practitioners in each health authority treat drug misusers, and that appropriate
772
training and support is available for those who need it. It is our view that doctors prefer guidance rather than governments interfering in clinical decisions.
Reference was made to the heavy hand of the Home Office drugs inspectorate. It is not a gestapo. Its role is to monitor the prescribing of controlled drugs in order to prevent diversion to the illicit market. It does so in close co-operation with the medical profession. It is not unknown for a doctor to enter into the illicit market. It is also not unknown for a doctor to become embroiled in becoming a misuser or abuser of drugs. It is precisely because of the international research evidence which indicates that there are considerable benefits in providing methadone—I refer again to the methadone point—in structured programmes that the Department of Health is funding up to seven structured methadone maintenance programmes. There will be full evaluation. I believe that that was the final point made by the noble Baroness.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging, interesting and, as I said earlier, sensitive debate. The theme of the debate, which I believe has received unanimous support throughout, is that tackling this vexed issue is most effectively done by tackling it together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, because I believe that she was the force behind the proposition for today's debate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she could give some assurance that sexually transmitted treatment services will remain confidential when GPs have total funding?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have just taken a whispered aside from my noble friend who has responsibility for that. I understand that confidentiality will be honoured.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standard Spending Assessments: East Midlands
7.49 p.m.
Lord Varley Lord Varley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take action to ensure that the standard spending assessment is applied consistently to local authorities in the East Midlands.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of initiating this short debate and delighted that the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Kimball, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln are also taking part in it. All three have a long and deep commitment to the East Midlands and I am glad of their support this evening. I am also pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will speak from the Liberal Democrat Benches and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel will speak from the Opposition Front Bench. I look forward to listening to the Minister and hope that at the end of what we say he will be able at least to give us some assurance that the adverse situation which we face in the East Midlands will soon be rectified.
I raise the issue of the standard spending assessment not in any party political or partisan manner, but on the basis of what I and many others believe to be the unfair way in which it operates in relation to the East Midlands. I became interested in this subject after reading a report of a conference held in Derbyshire on 11 th October which 120 representatives attended from the five counties which form the East Midlands: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. The representatives at the conference came from business and commerce. The Confederation of British Industry was represented, as were the Institute of Directors, the Churches and the voluntary organisations. The Lord Lieutenants of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and the High Sheriff of Derbyshire also attended, as did the local politicians from all the political parties. At the end of the conference, the representatives, covering all shades of opinion, pledged unanimous support for a fairer grant settlement for the region.
As I understand it, the standard spending assessment was designed to allow councils sufficient resources to provide a standard level of service. But there are wide and increasing discrepancies between the standard spending assessments of different local authorities.
Since the system was introduced in 1990–91, the East Midlands has consistently lost out to other regions, particularly to the south of England. Compared with the English county average, the region has been deprived of (or some would say has lost) £94 million in this financial year alone. Since 1990–91, the figure is over £300 million. Counties in the south east and south west of England and, to a lesser extent, in East Anglia, have all received much larger increases in the standard spending assessment than the East Midlands. For example, local authorities in the south of England have had increases of over 40 per cent. compared with the East Midlands on 28 per cent. with, so far as I can see, no realistic justification for the difference.
The main problem with the standard spending assessment system is the area cost adjustment factor which over-compensates counties in the south east for supposedly higher employee costs. But that argument, or alleged argument, in favour of the difference is not valid. Local authority pay scales are nationally based and outside the London weighting area there is little, if any, difference in employee costs between the East Midlands and the counties in the south east. In fact, it could be argued that with the greater turnover of staff in the south east, with new employees starting at the bottom of grades, there is some evidence that average costs can be lower.
This point is clearly illustrated by a comparison of education standard spending assessments. The major cost in education is the employment of teachers. Teachers are employed on national salary scales. So why does Hertfordshire's educational SSA provide £240 per secondary school pupil more than the corresponding SSA in Derbyshire? The same point arises with just as much force in the other four East Midlands counties.
The standard spending assessments are important because they are used to determine the amount of government grant that councils receive, and also because
774
they are used to control the total amount of spending on local services. Councils are allowed by the Government to spend only a certain percentage above their SSA before being capped. Being forced to spend up to their capping limit so soon after the introduction of the system gives a very good indication of the inadequacy of the assessment they receive. In stark contrast, only in this financial year have most of the south east counties come close to spending at their cap limit.
Despite the unfairness of the area cost adjustment being acknowledged by 27 out of 39 English counties, and consequently taken up by the Association of County Councils as a major issue, a government review of the system this year served only to exacerbate the problems. It brought about a 15 per cent. increase in the area cost adjustment, while the SSAs as a whole only increased by 2.7 per cent. As a result, even more resources are now being diverted towards the counties in the south of England, widening the gulf in resources between them and other parts of the country. There is about £1.5 billion at stake across the country as a whole.
If implemented, the changes to the area cost adjustment system, supported by the majority of the Association of County Councils—and I am sure that the Minister is aware of this—would provide a fairer deal for all; and for the East Midlands it would return more than £37 million to the region. The East Midlands' difficulties have been compounded by the Government's strict controls over the expenditure in the region. Over the past three years, the amount the Government have allowed the East Midlands counties to borrow to fund capital projects has declined by over 25 per cent. compared with the national total.
The East Midlands counties emphasise—and it goes for the vast majority of authorities throughout the country—that they are not necessarily seeking extra resources for local government as a whole, just a fairer distribution within the overall total. I know that it is always difficult to say, "We want more overall", but that is not what we are arguing for in the East Midlands at this stage. We do not think the distribution is fair. I looked at what the Secretary of State for the Environment said today in his Statement in another place and tried to wade through some of the weighty documents which are available. I do not think that he has addressed the matter at all.
So I ask the Minister in his reply to recognise the problems of the SSA system, particularly the area cost adjustment factor, and to act as quickly as possible to make amendments. If the Government stick to the present arrangements, I am afraid that it will mean further cuts to the essential services and to the infrastructure within the East Midlands. It will deprive areas such as the declining coalfield in the north east of Derbyshire—in fact, I do not think there is any longer a coalfield in north east Derbyshire. A reduced coalfield exists in Nottinghamshire, but certain parts of those two counties which I know well are utterly devastated. There are communities, former mining villages, with unemployment levels of 50 per cent. It is essential that we obtain help from the centre so that economic regeneration can take place.
If the Government do nothing, that will perpetuate what I believe to be an injustice which is acknowledged across the political spectrum, in all elements of the community and all sections of the economy. So I urge the Government to take action now to rectify the unfairness in the system for next year at least and for future years. I believe that the East Midlands has an entirely legitimate case and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that tonight when he replies to the debate.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, for raising the matter, as it is one on which I share his concern. He said, quite rightly, that it was not with a matter of overall totals that we were concerned but with the distribution. I share that view and I suspect that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lincoln will raise similar problems relating to the area of Lincolnshire. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Kimball is likely to raise similar difficulties with regard to Leicestershire. My home area is Northamptonshire. It is to that area that I shall largely confine my remarks, although I am sure that they are equally applicable to the other parts of the East Midlands.
I recognise clearly the problems in the allocation of resources. The last time that I had any experience of this matter was a very long time ago when, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I had the problem of trying to agree what I believe was then the rate support grant, the various grants that were paid to local authorities. I must confess that I did not understand them; nor did I think most of my advisers understood them. I felt that the Secretary of State for the Environment had little idea of what they were all about. The matter was left until one man somewhere in the bowels of the Treasury who knew something about it appeared. So it was with some hope and confidence that today I went along to the other place to hear the Secretary of State for the Environment making his Statement on the expenditure for next year. I must say that I was disappointed and I came away rather more confused than I was when I went. But I was fortified by the knowledge that there was a large bundle of papers in the Printed Paper Office. I went along and collected them, and they added to my confusion. If I have to disappoint my noble friend, it will be to say that he will not be asked to reply to me on any question that arises from that large bundle of papers which I am sure he has studied carefully and with great experience.
My complaint is that Northamptonshire, like the other parts of the East Midlands, has a loading against it. Superficially, the standard spending assessment (SSA) for Northamptonshire looks as though it is probably about right for the average of the shire counties. But that 'is only a superficial figure. It ignores entirely the average percentage of population in the statutory education system. I do not want to quote a large number of figures; but I think it is important to give an example to make this point. In 1994–95, for children in education between the ages of five and 11, Northamptonshire is £59 per pupil worse off than the average of the other shire counties. It is £145 per annum worse off per pupil
776
than England as a whole. Out of 39 shire counties, Northamptonshire stands 31st in the list of disadvantaged counties. Moving up the age scale, to age 11 to 16, the county is £84 per pupil per year worse off than the other shire counties; £194 worse off than the average for England; and 30th in the list of disadvantaged shire counties. When we come to the post-16 age group, it is £270 per pupil worse off than the average for the shire counties; and £454 worse off than the average for England; it is 37th in the list of 39 counties.
The position of Northamptonshire has deteriorated over the years since 1990–91. Over that five-year period, population percentage increases were some three times greater than in the neighbouring counties of Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire. Yet the SSA has not increased nearly as much as it has in those counties. Again, to quote an example, in Northamptonshire, where the population has increased by 3.47 per cent. against Bedfordshire's 1.09 per cent., Northamptonshire's SSA increase has been only 22.5 per cent. against Bedfordshire's 30 per cent. Similar figures could be produced for other counties in that area south of the Northamptonshire borders. I am not just talking about education. It applies right across the social services.
I am told—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Varley, made reference to this—that the main problem seems to be in the Area Cost Adjustment. The three counties that adjoin Northamptonshire—Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire—all participate in this on the assumed basis that they have to bear increased cost of services. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, is absolutely right. This really is nonsense. It costs no more to employ a teacher in Buckingham than it does to employ one in Northamptonshire. If we compare Banbury in Oxfordshire and Brackley in Northamptonshire, for example, one has the area cost adjustment while the other does not. The difference made is very significant. The majority of costs that come into the calculation are for wages and salaries—yet for example the teachers have a national scale for all those who are outside the London outer weighting area. I ask that my noble friend, when he replies, will regard the unfairness of what is happening to those East Midland counties as a matter of very considerable concern. I am afraid that he will only be able to say that today's announcement may have made slight differences in some particulars but has not in any way affected the principle, and the complaint which I have —as does the noble Lord, Lord Varley; and other noble Lords may well make—as to the unfairness that operates against those counties that have a loading against them which is monstrously unfair. I hope that my noble friend will take some steps to ameliorate that situation.
8.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, for the opportunity to speak in this brief debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said, I shall indeed speak mainly on behalf of Lincolnshire. The county of Lincolnshire co-incides with the area of the diocese of Lincoln, so it

777
is an area that I know particularly well. Since 1989–90, Lincolnshire has received less through standard spending assessments than the average for the shire counties. The effect of that in this current year is a loss of some £9 million. That is a serious matter in a widespread agricultural area.
The chief culprit appears to be the area cost adjustment mechanism, by which extra resources are pumped into London and the south east to compensate for above-average costs. Noble Lords have already referred to the inadequacy of that concept in these present times. We in Lincolnshire believe (like 26 of the other shire counties) that the area cost adjustment significantly over-compensates London and the south east.
Everyone recognises that the local government settlement for next year will be very, very tough. As such, surely it is vital that disadvantaged counties receive a better share of what cake there is. The correction of the area cost adjustment over-compensation will make a very marked contribution here.
Lincolnshire is not a wealthy county. Wage rates are the second lowest in the country—and in European terms Lincolnshire is on a par with Corsica. If that is to change, we in the county of Lincolnshire must attract inward investment to generate economic development.
Sadly, the present system does not recognise the potential benefits of economic development. It simply distributes grant on the basis of what there is now. Nor does the transport supplementary grant system help in this regard. A sound road infrastructure is vital to economic development; and yet for this current year Lincolnshire received over 30 per cent. less of the transport supplementary grant than in the previous year compared with a national reduction of 14.5 per cent.
I have what is, in many ways, the benefit of serving an area which has no motorways in it whatever. There is the very serious matter of the dualling of the A.46 between Newark and Lincoln, which forces Lincoln into some kind of economic decline. I have seen that decline over the years of my episcopate there. As my noble friends have pointed out, the area as a whole is losing out, and Lincolnshire is particularly disadvantaged. I make a plea to the Minister for a specific cost approach in local authority finance in order to anchor the area cost adjustment in reality again and to bring an end to the present injustice.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, for introducing this Unstarred Question.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I emphasise that none of us is asking for any new money or any more money. We are all asking for a fairer share of the funds that are available. That fact was recognised unanimously by the Association of County Councils, which acknowledged the unfairness of the present system. The five great shire counties of the Midlands of England—Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire—are all represented in this Chamber tonight. They all
778
speak with one voice about the unfairness of the area cost adjustment formula since its introduction, which has resulted in the standard spending cost assessment short-changing our counties.
It is a terrible state of affairs that the suburban counties —as I call them—south of the Thames have been given a larger increase in the standard spending assessment. If it had been evenly worked out, it would have resulted this year in £37 million being taken from the south and the east and given to those five great shire counties.
Some of us—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Varley, appreciates the point—will have some doubts about the past antics of the Derbyshire County Council. But that is no reason why the other counties should in any way be penalised. The right reverend Prelate, speaking about Lincolnshire, spoke for the county which has the soundest financial record of any county in Great Britain. Unfortunately, it is being penalised for its sound financial management over the years.
I thought it was very interesting that in this short debate there should be a great financial expert, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, coming to your Lordships' House and admitting quite honestly and truthfully that in all the years he worked for the Treasury, he did not have a clue about how local government finance was worked out. We would do much better to recognise that this is the state of affairs that we are in.
There was an announcement today from the other place that there would be a 2.2 per cent. increase in government grants to local authorities. If the extra expense of the work involved with the boundary commission is taken into account, and in which those five counties have been involved, the real increase is only 0.8 per cent. In addition to the review, there is the extra imposition of a common funding formula for schools. That will further pressurise local authority expenditure next year.
Whatever the technicalities of local government finance, let us be absolutely honest and straightforward about it. There is a feeling abroad in the county of Leicestershire that the county is being short-changed by this system.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Varley, for bringing this important issue before your Lordships. I shall become a little less involved in the geographical battles, though perhaps I may share with your Lordships what I heard from a colleague in the south west. The Western Mail—or at any rate, the major paper in the south west—has recently discovered the subject of the area cost adjustment and is currently running a major campaign, accusing the Government of being friendly to their friends in the south east, to the disbenefit of the south west. It asks what politics underlie decisions about the area cost adjustment. I understand that local politicians are standing back and letting the press raise the questions for them.

779
It is an issue that we in London have also faced. I recall two or three years ago complaining on behalf of London boroughs about the problems that they were suffering. Inevitably, I was faced with counter-accusations about unfairness to other areas with London benefiting. I fear that it is a subject on which statistics can be traded in a way that leads to confusion and not clarity.
I suggest that the problem is that the standard spending assessments and their whole basis are unrealistic. Yesterday, we heard in the debate on community care about the mismatch between spending on education and the SSA in the Isle of Wight. If that authority were to spend on the fire service at the level recommended by the DfE, it would be prosecuted by the Home Office. We know that its social services budget has run dry, as indeed it has in other authorities. Also, we know that last year's teachers' pay award was not fully funded.
There are complaints and squabbles, such as we have just heard. Local government is not in a position to plan further than one year ahead at a time. I appreciate that situations change and that every business—local authority is very big business—has to keep its budget under review. But learning of decisions relatively late in the process, in the way that it happens, is not conducive to good financial management.
For many years councils have absorbed cuts made necessary by government management or mismanagement of the economy. Inevitably, there is a cumulative effect in the funding shortfall. We should all like to see improvements in services such as nursery education, and that simply cannot happen without money. That money is to be provided by authorities which have been raiding their reserves and balances, so that in many cases the cupboard is nearly as bare as the auditor will allow.
There are always possibilities for cutting out waste and bureaucracy. Many authorities have made very great efforts and, having made the cuts required, they are now into real service cuts. There are also problems where the system of finance for local government cannot accord with local democracy and autonomy. The constraints are those of central government. There are limits on capital borrowing which are set by central government. It seems absurd that in running such a big business one cannot take one's own decisions about borrowing. Indeed, there are restricted sources of finance for borrowing by local government.
Since joining your Lordships' House I have on many occasions heard people in the City, and those involved in finance in other countries, ask why local authorities in this country cannot raise money through bonds and different systems of fund raising. We all know about the problem of capital receipts, where spending is restricted. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, talked about certain counties being proud of their record in sound financial management. I wish that they were able to exercise their abilities far more.
As we heard, the announcement yesterday stated that SSAs would go up by 2.2 per cent. for community care and local government reorganisation. I wonder how far
780
that increase will meet the requirements in both those areas. With regard to local government reorganisation, the costs of the review will be enormous—those that can be calculated and the hidden costs of the hundreds and thousands of man-hours that will be spent, not on the reorganisation when and where it happens but on the process. I suspect that they will have an effect for years to come.
Having the benefit of the previous debate going on for rather longer than I had expected, I was interested to read a comment in today's Evening Standard on the business rate. The London paper complains about changes in the business rate benefiting what they describe as "areas like the Midlands and the North", in that rather arrogant way of Londoners, at the expense of London businesses, whose business rates will not be reduced to the extent expected, given the reduction in rateable values. Tonight's editorial states that the Chancellor,
"caps the rate in the North and he limits rates reductions in the South. A more blatant, glaring, outrageous, unashamed and unconscionable example of discrimination and provincialism can hardly be imagined".
The writer of the editorial warns that the Tories have got seats to lose in London as well as outside. He says,
"It is time for London MPs, especially Tories, to make the Government's life difficult".
I thought they had been doing a fairly good job of that over the past few days.
I shall not trade claims as between areas. When I first became involved in local government a colleague said that local authority finance was as obscure and complicated as problems in the Middle East. We heard the confession made tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and nothing could more demonstrate that.
My plea is for more transparency to make it easier for everybody to understand what the issues are. Standard spending assessments are extremely difficult to understand. I suspect that central government have a tool with which they manage to confound those who seek to understand the system. I wonder whether it is in fact to the advantage of central government that they allow a system to continue which enables local authorities too easily to get into a squabble between themselves.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Varley for raising this question, which is not entirely about the East Midlands, though I recognise the strength of the case made by my noble friend. Important issues are raised in relation to what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to as "a share of the cake". We are not asking for more cake; we are asking for a "share" of the cake.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is important in this House, as it is in another place, that there should be more transparency as to how the cake is shared out. Since the resolution of the poll tax fiasco—I am sorry to introduce a slightly party political atmosphere into the debate—there is no doubt that central government have much more influence over the distribution of the cake than they had before. We are

781
now talking of something like 80 per cent. of local authority revenues which come from central government. It is therefore even more important that in your Lordships' House and in another place we are quite clear about the ground rules as to how that will be shared out.
The original SSA formula was designed—and still is designed—to allow each local authority to provide a standard level of service. We must accept that there must be a formula on which the cake is shared out. But I wonder whether the present SSA formula, with the adjustments to which I shall come in a moment, is something at which the Government should look again. After all, the major objections to the formula are: first, that Whitehall knows best; Whitehall knows what the standard service is. Whether one is talking of Lincolnshire, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, Northamptonshire or Derbyshire, Whitehall knows what the standard level of service should be. That in itself is a questionable assumption.
The second problem with SSAs, as was confirmed today in the Secretary of State's Statement, is that they are the fundamental fulcrum for determining local authority expenditure. If a budget in this financial year—this has now been confirmed—is above a SSA by 12.5 per cent., it is regarded as excessive unless it is no greater or less than last year's expenditure; but that is irrelevant.
The third major problem with SSAs is that until the 1993 review they were largely based on the 1981 census. Now we have the 1991 census, which is a broad national picture and does not reflect the needs and specific circumstances of the counties about which noble Lords have been talking in the debate this afternoon.
I accept that there have been improvements to the formula. I welcome the inclusion of economic deprivation, stronger weighting for sparsity of population, recognition of community care and so forth. Nevertheless, as of this afternoon we know that local authorities are to be squeezed again. These are general points I am making. Leaving aside the police, there will be a 2.2 per cent. increase—a figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball—in local authority spending, including community care and the costs of local government reorganisation. That means a net cash increase of around 0.8 per cent.—again a figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. On any measure of inflation or services, that is a cash squeeze on local authorities.
I turn now specifically to the East Midlands, referred to by my noble friend Lord Varley and other noble Lords. Even given the cash squeeze which is about to hit that area, is the East Midlands getting its fair share? I turn also to the area cost adjustment—a definition of which I believe to be,
"a formula attached to the basic standard spending assessment to allow for the higher costs of providing services in London and the South-East".
When the SSA formula was reviewed during 1993–94 for the current year 1994–95, the result assumed much higher costs for an equivalent level of service in London and the south-east. But given that nearly 90 per cent. of
782
local authority expenditure (after debt charges) goes on wages and salaries, and that both salaries and debt charges—leaving aside London weightings—are determined nationally, what is the justification for the more generous area cost figures for the south-east? Logically there can be no justification whatever.
In the same review, weightings were altered. In relation to additional educational needs, under the new formula the amount to be distributed fell from 21 per cent. to below 17 per cent. That will disadvantage those local authorities which have ethnic problems, statemented children and all those matters with which the East Midlands is concerned. It appears to us that some of the adjustments favour the leafy suburbs rather than the areas with genuine needs to which my noble friend referred. Furthermore, there are some adjustments to SSAs for districts. For example, extra money is provided for buildings for day visitors. That is a clear advantage to London and not a clear advantage to Leicester, Northampton, Lincoln or any of the other counties to which my noble friend referred.
As other noble Lords said, today's announcement—in so far as I was able to digest that monumental tome—will do nothing either to help the generality of local authorities in England or to help the local authorities referred to by my noble friend. With a net cash increase of 0.8 per cent. generally and capping criteria very severe, I am not convinced that the new arrangements for the business rate will help the East Midlands.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Varley for raising the matter. I suspect that this kind of debate will come up more often in your Lordships' House because, unless the Government are absolutely clear—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, absolutely transparent—in how the cake is to be shared out, there will be a natural suspicion (if I may put it like that) in the minds of noble Lords from counties or districts who feel they are disadvantaged or indeed noble Lords who may think that there is some party political rigging going on. There will be a natural desire to have debates on this matter. I have deliberately abstained, unaccustomedly, from making this a partisan debate. I believe that my noble friend was right in introducing it as a non-partisan debate. But I believe that the Government have a case to answer.
8.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this has been a very timely debate, coinciding as it has with the publication of the finance figures for local government. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, although he himself kept his remarks entirely to the East Midlands, has raised important and topical matters. I am pleased to think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has dealt with it on a non-partisan basis. I believe that the debate is improved for that. The noble Lord, like all other noble Lords who have spoken, indicated that he was not really worried

783
about the level of the expenditure but about the share of the cake, except perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that it was not enough.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not wish to give the noble Viscount the impression that I am satisfied with the total cake.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was indicating that this debate is more about the share of the cake than it is about the total cake.
Perhaps I may spend a minute or two on the settlement. We have decided that the appropriate amount for local authorities in England to spend in aggregate in 1995–96 will be £43.511 billion. Central government support for this spending will be £34.672 billion, of which some £11.4 billion will be redistributed non-domestic rate, £18.2 billion will be revenue support grant and£5 billion will be grants for specific purposes.
For the standard spending assessments, we propose changes relating to the police element of the formula. This begins to base the formula on the underlying need for expenditure, rather than wholly on the side of the police establishment. In the bulk of the SSAs, there will be only limited change. The consultation documents which have been made available to this House set out the proposed changes.
We have announced our provisional capping criteria for local authority budgets in 1995–96 and our intentions for "notional amounts". These are necessary to calculate a base budget for capping; for example, in the case of shire counties which will lose responsibility for the police service after this year. The criteria set out in full in the consultation papers are necessarily provisional as legislation allows final capping criteria to be set only after the deadline for local authorities to make their budgets.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the settlement reflected a squeeze on local government. I believe that the proposals which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced represent a balanced and reasonable response to the conflict between the pressure to provide ever more resources for local government and the need to control public spending. I believe that they represent a package which the country as a whole can afford.
My right honourable friend's statement concerns national aggregates and changes to the standard spending assessments, which will affect authorities at large. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, has drawn our attention, in particular, to the circumstances of the East Midlands. He argues that the authorities of the East Midlands stand at a disadvantage to those in other parts of the country in their standard spending assessments. I think it would be helpful if I summarised the position of the East Midlands, following my right honourable friend's statement.
The East Midlands can truly be described as "middle England", so far as concerns the standard spending assessments. The SSAs per person proposed for 1995–96 are almost identical to the national average for the shire areas. The average for the East Midlands is £718.36; the
784
average for England is £717.77. The picture is the same if we consider each class of authority separately: the county councils; the district councils; and the police authorities. I would say to my noble friend Lord Boardman that the shire county SSA for Northamptonshire is £584.64 whereas the average for the East Midlands is £572.06. The average for England on the whole is £572.15. All these figures are very similar between the individual counties. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the county of Lincolnshire. There is a figure of £573.92 for that shire county. Therefore, the figures are very similar to the average for England.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I made the point that, on average, superficially they would appear to be about right. But one has to take into account the fact that special circumstances apply to these counties. In Northamptonshire the growth in the numbers at school has been much greater. I showed that the differences which apply there are very significant.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I intended to come onto that point in a few minutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, referred to the increases in standard spending assessments for the East Midlands over a number of years. It is misleading, I believe, to compare rates of increase. Standing spending assessments do not work simply by deciding how much increase to allow from one year to the next. They are based on objective methodology and objective indicators. If the data for indicators used in the standard spending assessments show a more rapid increase in one area than those in another, there will be, quite properly, a difference in the rate of growth of the areas' SSAs. For instance, we were able to reflect the results of the 1991 census in the standard spending assessments for 1994–95. If the methodology is changed from one year to the next, some areas will have greater increases in standard spending assessments than others.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that there was a need for another review of SSAs. There was a review in 1993, as the noble Lord will recognise. He asked that there should be no obscurity in the development of SSAs. The SSAs are developed in full and open consultation with the local authority associations. All the information on which they are based is shared with the associations. It is an entirely open system. It is not hidden in any way. There were many changes following the review in 1994 and many fewer this year. The system of standard spending assessments is an open one. We discuss at great length with the local authority associations possible changes which might improve the SSAs. We share with them the objective evidence for the formula which has been adopted. We openly acknowledge those instances in which the formula has to draw, to some extent, on judgment.
For 1995–96, we propose a measure of stability in the SSAs. This follows a year in which we reviewed the methodology for most of the standard spending assessments and made a considerable number of changes. But we remain willing to consider further changes if they are well founded. The formula we adopt

785
is a common formula for all authorities which provide the same services. There is completely even-handed treatment of authorities. The reason some authorities have a larger standard spending assessment than others is the difference in the characteristics in their area and the people in it and their differing responsibilities for the services.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, drew attention to the problems of education in Northamptonshire. I agree that the authorities have a duty to provide education for the years of compulsory schooling. But authorities have discretion as to their use of the revenue support grant for particular services. Authorities have to decide for themselves the priority to attach to the education service and have discretion in deciding the level of spending on primary, secondary and other education.
Whatever formula is proposed it is the subject of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, referred to one component of the formula which is particularly significant for the standard spending assessment in the south-east of England. In this area the standing spending assessments are increased by what is known as an "area cost adjustment". I do not believe that in the debate tonight the area cost adjustment had a friend. It reflects the mainly higher rates of pay in that region among those occupations with which local authorities are likely to have to compete in recruiting and retaining staff. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that that may be flawed. It is something, I know, which arouses considerable passion. Those in the area in which it applies are very often convinced that it ignores elements of extra cost which they regard as important such as the higher rents for offices in London and the south-east. My noble friend Lord Kimball was fervently convinced that the area cost adjustment is already over generous and should be reduced considerably. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken subscribe to that view. It is a point of view which the Association of County Councils has been researching. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, met the association in September to discuss its concerns. He agreed that we would look further at ways in which the area cost adjustment might be refined in future years. I understand that the association is seeking to develop its case for a change.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, would, I am sure, be interested to know that for the year 1995–96, on a like-for-like basis, the area cost adjustment is a slightly lesser share of the total SSA at 4 per cent. compared with 4.1 per cent. in 1994–95. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln addressed the specific cost approach to area cost adjustment. The Association of County Councils would prefer a specific cost approach. The association discussed the matter with my honourable friend the Minister for local government. The association is developing its proposals further and my honourable friend has said that he will consider the association's proposals when it has been able to develop its methodologies. I hope that your Lordships will understand that the Government and my department have not closed their ears to the development of the area cost adjustment. If we see that there is a reason for it to be changed there is no reason for it not to he considered.
786
Nevertheless, I believe that we must keep a sense of perspective. It is true that the average standard spending assessment of authorities in the south-east is higher than that of counties in the East Midlands. But the difference is not great. The average for shire authorities in the south-east is £726.45 and the average for those in the East Midlands, as I originally said, is £718.36—not a great deal of difference. Nonetheless, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Varley, that there is, in my view, no possibility that this issue will fall from our attention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—unusually in the debate —complained more about the overall settlement than perhaps the East Midlands grant itself. The speech of the noble Baroness went rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. I can answer at least two of her questions. She was worried about the Isle of Wight fire service. I am glad to be able to tell her that the anxieties of the Isle of Wight about its fire service have been recognised. The part of its SSA for the fire service has been increased substantially for 1995–96, recognising the difficulty it has in sharing any of its service with its neighbours.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will agree that the fact that this is an issue which has been recognised and had particular attention this year indicates how complex the system is and the flaws which need to be addressed. When I say that it is recognised for this year, I am of course referring to the fact that the issue is recognised for the forthcoming year. The flaws have been highlighted by the problems which have been experienced this year.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I did indicate that there were some small adjustments to the SSA for this year. One of them is for the fire service of a coastal district which, as I indicated, has difficulty in sharing some of its services because there is the coast on one side.
There is provision for the cost of local government reorganisation in 1995–96 at £50 million. The cost of the reorganisation is relatively modest set against the total standard spending which is £43.5 billion for next year. The noble Baroness also commented on capital control. I believe that the system which we now have gives authorities a good deal of flexibility both in how to fund capital projects and how to set their own priorities. But local authority borrowing is part of public sector borrowing and it must make a contribution to achieving a sound and prudent control of public expenditure.
In conclusion, the East Midlands is by no means ill-favoured in the allocation of standard spending assessment. The average of its standard spending assessment stands in the middle ranks of the regions, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate, and just above the national average for the shires. It has its position through the application of an objective formula built up in discussion with the local authority associations. In short, I believe that it is getting its proper due—no more and no less.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.

  ROYAL PREROGATIVE: POWERS
  ROYAL PREROGATIVE: POWERS
  HOUSING BENEFIT
  HOUSING BENEFIT
  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE: COMPENSATION RECOVERY
  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE: COMPENSATION RECOVERY
  PUBLIC LIBRARY SPENDING
  PUBLIC LIBRARY SPENDING
  PUBLIC GENERAL ACTS
  PUBLIC GENERAL ACTS
  PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: LAW REFORM
  PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: LAW REFORM
  A.127 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
  A.127 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
  EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION
  EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: COST EFFECTIVE SUPPORT SERVICES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: COST EFFECTIVE SUPPORT SERVICES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: SUPPORT SERVICE COST REGULATIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: SUPPORT SERVICE COST REGULATIONS
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT: RESPONSE
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT: RESPONSE
  COUNCIL TAXES
  COUNCIL TAXES
  ELECTION CANDIDATES: BALLOT PAPER DESCRIPTION
  ELECTION CANDIDATES: BALLOT PAPER DESCRIPTION
  POLICE GRANTS: PROPOSALS
  POLICE GRANTS: PROPOSALS
  NON-DOMESTIC RATES: DISTRIBUTABLE AMOUNT
  NON-DOMESTIC RATES: DISTRIBUTABLE AMOUNT